Sure would love national health careFollow

Violence can be consensual. Quit using that as a stipulation, or better yet, just shut the fUck up.

Smash quoting monxdot removed. I'm not advertising insane ramblings which have been sub-defaulted.

.... I hope he's just a kid and once he has his first girlfriend all this kind of stuff goes away.


Edited, Mar 11th 2007 12:51pm by yossarian

Lol. Actually, I don't. You seemed to be arguing that with Monx, not me.

What I said (in a much earlier thread) was that in the case where a rapist "rams" his dick (or sundry rigid objects) into an unwilling, but resigned participant (not sure that's the correct word btw), there are physiological tests that will show that the "participant" was not willing.

Hence the whole "there will be marks" argument. Of course, never underestimate the capability of a bunch of random people posting on an internet forum to ignore the medical facts of the issue, or the capabilities of forensic science in this area. Instead, we'll just simplify the whole argument into a "if it doesn't leave marks, it's not rape" and argue against that instead...

Again. I just read your post and thought it was amusing. You were stating a position (whether you intended to or not) that was several steps farther then anything I ever said about rape, yet magically no one seemed to notice...



Well now you're pulling out false analogies. What will you think of next!?

My entire argument about rape was about the evidentiary process. Period. What degree of evidence of a crime should be present before charges should be filed? Should have been simple, but apparently some people don't seem to understand the difference between "actions" and "provable actions". I know... I expect too much.

The issue is about legality. We have sets of rules for different jurisdictions and crimes. And guess what? They "differ". No matter how much some might want to assume differently, there really are different rules for the capture and imprisonment of "enemy combatants" in a disputed territory during a military action, and a normal citizen charged with commiting a domestic crime.

They are worlds apart in terms of legality and response. You could not come up with a more ridiculous analogy. But just to humor you, my position on both is remarkably similar:

We should be applying the appropriate rules to each situation. There are sets of rules regarding prisoners taken for various things in a time and place of war. There are *different* rules regarding domestic criminal codes and how police should act in response to possible violations of said codes. The process and treatment of the prisoners at Gitmo are in keeping with the rules for such prisoners. The process and treatment of accused date rapists often are *not* in keeping with the rules for domestic criminal charges (most especially in the area of required evidence prior to a charge being filed).

But hey! feel free to toss out more irrelevant analogies if you want.



I didn't say that. However, relationship of the parties *is* a significant determinant as to whether there's evidence of a crime. If I report my car stolen and it's found with a total stranger driving it, it's a good bet that person stole the car, right (from the cops perspective). If I report my car stolen, and they find my roomate with the car, and he's got my keys and says that I gave them to him and lent him the car, guess what? They're not going to charge him with stealing the car unless I can provide some other proof that his claim is not true.