- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remember the Duke LAX rape case?
Remember the Duke LAX rape case?Follow
/claim
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
So are saying instead of being charged with rape the entire team should be charged with soliciting sex and that they should possibly be subject to strict disciplinary action by the University for such action at a team social event?
Or should we chalk it up to 'boys will be boys' and show where you really stand?
Or should we chalk it up to 'boys will be boys' and show where you really stand?
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Yet, Smash, you made a case for him not being guilty. Rape is rape. At least that is what everybody is telling me here.
No, I made a case for a law that equivocates a 19 year old having sex with a 17 year olds and a 47 year old raping a 2 year old being ******* retarded.
There's no question he was guilty. They had sex, and that's all the statue requires.
If you want to argue that laws are stupid becuase they define non consensual sex as rape, have a ball.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
I agree with that assertion, FleaJo1. Yet the only caveat I'd add is that by being a prostitute she is subjecting herself to that behavior voluntarily. By placing herself in a situation with the full knowledge of the likely end results of her choices, she becomes at least somewhat culpable for being raped.
In other words, had she been at the library studying or at home taking care of her two kids she could not have been raped by Duke LAX students.
C'mon, people. Are you really trying to tell me nobody has any responsibility to take necessary steps to prevent bad things happening to themselves? Are you really that naive?
Totem
In other words, had she been at the library studying or at home taking care of her two kids she could not have been raped by Duke LAX students.
C'mon, people. Are you really trying to tell me nobody has any responsibility to take necessary steps to prevent bad things happening to themselves? Are you really that naive?
Totem
Totem wrote:
C'mon, people. Are you really trying to tell me nobody has any responsibility to take necessary steps to prevent bad things happening to themselves? Are you really that naive?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
C'mon, people. Are you really trying to tell me nobody has any responsibility to take necessary steps to prevent bad things happening to themselves?
Sure they do. That doesn't mean when bad things happens, the people who commit the bad acts are somehow less culpible. You're not that naive are you?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
No, Bhodi, I'd say that the entire team present at the party should have been expelled from school for conduct unbecoming to the university. Make no mistake about it, I see no discernable difference between the immorality of, say, underage drinking and hiring strippers. As a parent I wouldn't want my kid engaged in either of these exploits. And I'd be even more angry if he was on scholarship and had done such a stupid thing.
Totem
Totem
No, Smash, I'm not that naive. But I also take a jaundiced eye towards a woman who makes her living sexually exciting men and then exclaiming that she did nothing to warrant that kind of undesirable attention. Do you see the disconnect? Do you not see that she could reasonably assume that in time something of this type of thing would happen to her, particularly since she didn't have muscle backing her up?
Totem
Totem
As a parent I wouldn't want my kid engaged in either of these exploits.
Right, and if anything even vaguely simmilar to this happened to your daughter, regardless of the circumstances you'd find all the guys and castrate them.
Then make castenets out of their **********
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Do you see the disconnect?
No, because there isn't one. It's still assault if a boxer punches a guy in the face who backs out of a fight.
Do you see why?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Yes, I see why, Smash. There has to be a definitive line somewhere so that legal redress can be taken when offense occurs. Yet-- yet --that does not excuse the person in your example from taking punches. It's a reasonable end result of the behavior he is engaged in. A boxer can expect to be pummeled. A convenience store clerk can expect to be robbed. A hooker can expect to be raped. So and so forth.
Totem
Totem
Smasharoo wrote:
Do you see the disconnect?
No, because there isn't one. It's still assault if a boxer punches a guy in the face who backs out of a fight.
Do you see why?
And that is why I prefer Smash over Totem.
I'm almost tempted to use
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
It's a reasonable end result of the behavior he is engaged in. A boxer can expect to be pummeled. A convenience store clerk can expect to be robbed. A hooker can expect to be raped.
Let's just go ******* insane and assume for a minute that last part were true. She can expect to be availed of the criminal justice ststem, too, right?
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Totem wrote:
No, Smash, I'm not that naive. But I also take a jaundiced eye towards a woman who makes her living sexually exciting men and then exclaiming that she did nothing to warrant that kind of undesirable attention. Do you see the disconnect? Do you not see that she could reasonably assume that in time something of this type of thing would happen to her, particularly since she didn't have muscle backing her up?
You are being naive if you don't know that in 100% of rape cases, the victims aren't 'attracting attention', as you call it, for the express purpose of being raped. In fact, I'll go one step further and assert that no one assumes they will be a victim of a crime until they are. It's just the way of things.
Of course it's a shame that she was in a high-risk situation, that her profession wasn't the cleanest one, but your assertion that it somehow confers blame and responsibility on her for an act that was totally outside her power and makes her something other than a victim of a crime, should this crime be proved in a court of law, is just plain dumb.
Quote:
A hooker can expect to be raped. So and so forth.
Sig'ed
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Totem wrote:
I agree with that assertion, FleaJo1. Yet the only caveat I'd add is that by being a prostitute she is subjecting herself to that behavior voluntarily. By placing herself in a situation with the full knowledge of the likely end results of her choices, she becomes at least somewhat culpable for being raped.
In other words, had she been at the library studying or at home taking care of her two kids she could not have been raped by Duke LAX students.
C'mon, people. Are you really trying to tell me nobody has any responsibility to take necessary steps to prevent bad things happening to themselves? Are you really that naive?
Totem
In other words, had she been at the library studying or at home taking care of her two kids she could not have been raped by Duke LAX students.
C'mon, people. Are you really trying to tell me nobody has any responsibility to take necessary steps to prevent bad things happening to themselves? Are you really that naive?
Totem
I figured that your argument would regress to that tired old blame-the-victim fallacy eventually.
Totem wrote:
Yes, I see why, Smash. There has to be a definitive line somewhere so that legal redress can be taken when offense occurs. Yet-- yet --that does not excuse the person in your example from taking punches. It's a reasonable end result of the behavior he is engaged in. A boxer can expect to be pummeled. A convenience store clerk can expect to be robbed. A hooker can expect to be raped. So and so forth.
Totem
Totem
If someone sees the boxer in the street, and beats him to near death, they have commited a crime. If someone robs the convenience store owner, they've commited a crime.
But rape a hooker, and you're gold.
Edited, Jun 21st 2006 at 4:56pm EDT by Eske
Most certainly. Still I highly doubt she will make any headway in her proceedings.
As I see it people have been caught up in confusing two separate issues concerning this case: the legal side and the moral side. And I suspect I have generously helped in that mix up since to me they overlap from a personal viewpoint and have argued in that light.
To my eyes we as a society have gone from a "She's a hussy and deserved it" stance to "the woman is always right no matter what the circumstances are" position. I think it is more accurate to blend the two by factoring in personal responsibility with legal accountability. And no, I couldn't even begin to figure out a way to make something like that work, but in personal and practical terms I have attempted to instill in my daughter those values.
Totem
As I see it people have been caught up in confusing two separate issues concerning this case: the legal side and the moral side. And I suspect I have generously helped in that mix up since to me they overlap from a personal viewpoint and have argued in that light.
To my eyes we as a society have gone from a "She's a hussy and deserved it" stance to "the woman is always right no matter what the circumstances are" position. I think it is more accurate to blend the two by factoring in personal responsibility with legal accountability. And no, I couldn't even begin to figure out a way to make something like that work, but in personal and practical terms I have attempted to instill in my daughter those values.
Totem
Totem wrote:
Most certainly. Still I highly doubt she will make any headway in her proceedings.
As I see it people have been caught up in confusing two separate issues concerning this case: the legal side and the moral side. And I suspect I have generously helped in that mix up since to me they overlap from a personal viewpoint and have argued in that light.
To my eyes we as a society have gone from a "She's a hussy and deserved it" stance to "the woman is always right no matter what the circumstances are" position. I think it is more accurate to blend the two by factoring in personal responsibility with legal accountability. And no, I couldn't even begin to figure out a way to make something like that work, but in personal and practical terms I have attempted to instill in my daughter those values.
Totem
As I see it people have been caught up in confusing two separate issues concerning this case: the legal side and the moral side. And I suspect I have generously helped in that mix up since to me they overlap from a personal viewpoint and have argued in that light.
To my eyes we as a society have gone from a "She's a hussy and deserved it" stance to "the woman is always right no matter what the circumstances are" position. I think it is more accurate to blend the two by factoring in personal responsibility with legal accountability. And no, I couldn't even begin to figure out a way to make something like that work, but in personal and practical terms I have attempted to instill in my daughter those values.
Totem
Society in general likely thinks that she's a hussy and deserved it, is more likely.
But neither of those two stances are correct, so blending the two will lead you to the convoluted and misguided argument that you're adopting. The rest of us are proposing a stance which has no bearing on that set of logic.
You know, between Smash and ToUtem, I'm trying to work out which one of you is George Michael, and which one's Andrew Ridgeley.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Nobby wrote:
You know, between Smash and ToUtem, I'm trying to work out which one of you is George Michael, and which one's Andrew Ridgeley.
"You are being naive if you don't know that in 100% of rape cases, the victims aren't 'attracting attention', as you call it, for the express purpose of being raped. In fact, I'll go one step further and assert that no one assumes they will be a victim of a crime until they are. It's just the way of things." --FleaJo1
The problem is that logic just doesn't cut it. As a woman who dances sexually for a living and gears the vast majority of her business to men she should have a reasonable expectation of that happening to her. Does she assume it'll happen this she dances? Prolly not, just like I don't expect to crash on my cycle this time even though I regularly go above 100 mph. But I know if I do crash I have no one else to blame-- even if a car pulls out in front of me. After all I am engaged in a high risk activity.
Can I make it any plainer? There. I have adequately demonstrated purposeful risky behavior, admitted to it, recognised a possible, nay likely result, and accept the consequences. I will not, nor would I ever dream of suing the car that pulls out in front of me when I am consciously engaged in dangerous behavior.
The analogy is this: Biking riding = legal and perfectly responsible. Consentual sex = legal and (somewhat) responsible (sometimes)*. Speeding recklessly = illegal and irresponsible. Prostitution = illegal and irresponsible. If I accept the consequences of my actions from myself, I can certainly demand that kind of personal responsibility from a *****.
Totem
*Gratutitous moralism inserted for your edification
The problem is that logic just doesn't cut it. As a woman who dances sexually for a living and gears the vast majority of her business to men she should have a reasonable expectation of that happening to her. Does she assume it'll happen this she dances? Prolly not, just like I don't expect to crash on my cycle this time even though I regularly go above 100 mph. But I know if I do crash I have no one else to blame-- even if a car pulls out in front of me. After all I am engaged in a high risk activity.
Can I make it any plainer? There. I have adequately demonstrated purposeful risky behavior, admitted to it, recognised a possible, nay likely result, and accept the consequences. I will not, nor would I ever dream of suing the car that pulls out in front of me when I am consciously engaged in dangerous behavior.
The analogy is this: Biking riding = legal and perfectly responsible. Consentual sex = legal and (somewhat) responsible (sometimes)*. Speeding recklessly = illegal and irresponsible. Prostitution = illegal and irresponsible. If I accept the consequences of my actions from myself, I can certainly demand that kind of personal responsibility from a *****.
Totem
*Gratutitous moralism inserted for your edification
I have to assume that if I leave the door to my house unlocked that it might get robbed. That doesn't absolve the robber though.
Placing blame on the victim is where your entire stance falls apart. Deal with it.
Placing blame on the victim is where your entire stance falls apart. Deal with it.
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Quote:
If I accept the consequences of my actions from myself, I can certainly demand that kind of personal responsibility from a *****.
You can demand it, but you can't expect to be right.
Queen bodhisattva wrote:
Placing blame on the victim is where your entire stance falls apart.
Deal with it.
Deal with it.
/nod
Why is it "rape" that gets everyone rambling in this stupid forum?
Last week it was date rape hijacking a thread. Now it's this.
If a woman takes off her clothes and starts doing the Lambada in Times Square, it is against the law for anyone to rape her. If she's working as a prostitute and gets raped, it's still against the law - dicey for her to ask for a prosecution - but it's against the law. If someone uses heroine and is killed by someone so they can take his drugs and money, that murder was against the law.
The real issue in the Duke case is that there is almost no evidence of a rape, at least so far. The prosecutor who pushed the case may actually lose this upcoming election, he's become that unpopular over this.
Last week it was date rape hijacking a thread. Now it's this.
If a woman takes off her clothes and starts doing the Lambada in Times Square, it is against the law for anyone to rape her. If she's working as a prostitute and gets raped, it's still against the law - dicey for her to ask for a prosecution - but it's against the law. If someone uses heroine and is killed by someone so they can take his drugs and money, that murder was against the law.
The real issue in the Duke case is that there is almost no evidence of a rape, at least so far. The prosecutor who pushed the case may actually lose this upcoming election, he's become that unpopular over this.
EvilGnomes wrote:
If she's working as a prostitute and gets raped, it's still against the law - dicey for her to ask for a prosecution - but it's against the law.
Recent Visitors: 217
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Remember the Duke LAX rape case?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC