3 months for Rape

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are missing one big difference.

Yelling slurs, while perfectly legal, is a insulting personal attack on other people.

Getting drunk is not a personal attack or insult to another person.

You have to be pretty dense to not see any difference between those two actions, so to me the only thing that explains your thinking is sexist victim blaming.

Pretty sure it was in response to butting yourself in dangerous situations.

What is you opinion of someone getting drunk at a party to someone driving to work at night/ Spot on or Dense?

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2016, 01:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now you are changing the wording. You orginally said there are folks that cannot accept that there are those who don't deserve to be raped are raped. You have now changed that to there are folks that think folks deserve to be raped.

I have zero doubt that there are folks out there that would support the "she asked for it" mentallity; given they are most likely extrememly rare.

You still didn't answer the question i posed. Is your cognitive disonance making it difficult?

I traced our entire back-n-forth back to my initial post and at no point was I specifically addressing a question Kain presented.  What question did he present that you seem to think I'm specifically addressing?

And what is the specific question you are asking me?  Just state it and I'll give my opinion and we can hopefully move on with our riveting lives. I'd point out that you're being a big of a tool about it, but I'm asking for it by debating politics on the internet.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2016, 12:52 PM)Beaker Wrote: A person steps over the rail at the Grand canyon to get a better picture. There are warning signs all over the rail explaining the danger. The person falls and is severly injured or killed. They should not have had the sense not to put themselves in a dangerous situation? I use that analogy because crossing the rail is going beyond a safe boundary. Similarlly, drinking to much is going beyond a safe boundary. Both are known dangerous situations to the offender. Where does common sense come into play?

If a person gets drunk and fall down because she is drunk she is responsible for her injuries.

If a person gets drunk and gets raped the rapist is responsible.

If a girl steps over a rail at the Grand Canyon and someone pushes her over the edge is the victim to blame for her fall?

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 01:50 PM)Griever Wrote: and both responses to the individuals are the perps fault, seeing as they are both illegal actions (assault/rape)

Exactamundo !

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 01:57 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I traced our entire back-n-forth back to my initial post and at no point was I specifically addressing a question Kain presented.  What question did he present that you seem to think I'm specifically addressing?

And what is the specific question you are asking me?  Just state it and I'll give my opinion and we can hopefully move on with our riveting lives. I'd point out that you're being a big of a tool about it, but I'm asking for it by debating politics on the internet.

Post 152

[*Nately120*]

(06-08-2016, 01:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Post 152

So you asked me:

Do you think there has ever been a case of someone accused/convicted of rape that didn't deserve it?

...and that seems like a rhetorical question to me, but, I'll bite and say that I am in no way operating under the illusion that no one has ever been wrongly accused or convicted of rape.

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are missing one big difference.

Yelling slurs, while perfectly legal, is an insulting personal attack on other people.

Getting drunk is not a personal attack or insult to another person.

You have to be pretty dense to not see any difference between those two actions, so to me the only thing that explains your thinking is sexist victim blaming.

I'm surprised it took you this long to jump in !
Welcome !
Yes, I can be dense.
But... I do believe the I insisted that the "personal attack" was vague and not directed at an individual (avoiding hate crime status and all).
Furthermore, it is relative to a scenario in the last Trump thread.
Take a little time to read that gem.

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2016, 02:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: But... I do believe the I insisted that the "personal attack" was vague and not directed at an individual (avoiding hate crime status and all).

So racial slurs do not apply to an entire race?

Interesting concept.

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So racial slurs do not apply to an entire race?

Interesting concept.

Does three not need to be a specific victim ?
As a lawyer, are you telling me that it is justifiable for a person to assault me for yelling obscenities at the sky ?
I certainly could be detained for a mental health evaluation, but that would seem the extent of legal interaction (barring trespassing or archaic obscenity laws, which could be easily challenged).

[fredtoast]

(06-08-2016, 02:21 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Does three not need to be a specific victim ?
As a lawyer, are you telling me that it is justifiable for a person to assault me for yelling obscenities at the sky ?

All I was saying was that it was wrong to compare using hate speech toward a group of people to getting drunk.  Legal definitions aside it is pretty clear to most people why one of those actions cold be seen as provocative and the other not.

Can you not see any difference?

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-08-2016, 02:06 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm surprised it took you this long to jump in !
Welcome !
Yes, I can be dense.
But... I do believe the I insisted that the "personal attack" was vague and not directed at an individual (avoiding hate crime status and all).
Furthermore, it is relative to a scenario in the last Trump thread.
Take a little time to read that gem.

I can yell racial epithets at someone directly and I can't be charged with anything...It doesn't matter if I yell it at the sky, the ground, or Obama.  Now if I were to beat the crap out of someone while spewing that garbage I may be able to be charged with a hate crime, though the main focus is the physical attack opens the door.

[Griever]

(06-08-2016, 02:35 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I can yell racial epithets at someone directly and I can't be charged with anything...It doesn't matter if I yell it at the sky, the ground, or Obama.  Now if I were to beat the crap out of someone while spewing that garbage I may be able to be charged with a hate crime, though the main focus is the physical attack opens the door.

1st amendment

[BigPapaKain]

Last time I had this come up, I was told words - no matter how heinous - do not count as legitimate provocation for physical violence.

[*bfine32*]

(06-08-2016, 02:54 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Last time I had this come up, I was told words - no matter how heinous - do not count as legitimate provocation for physical violence.

Whoever told you that was correct.

[BigPapaKain]

(06-08-2016, 03:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Whoever told you that was correct.

I'd hope so - it was the cop who patrolled my high school.

[Au165]

(06-08-2016, 01:25 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'm ok with that.
It is always possible I am not coming across as I feel I am.
Just understand that the metric was in entertaining your scanario, which had nothing to do with my original point.
However, you are right that the metric is not defined and I lack the information to do so.

Edit.... yes I know I was using a metric that I am admitting that I cannot fully define. I should have refrained from your hypothetical and stayed my course.
Oh well....

Hey, I won't get bent out of shape it's all good. I don't think your supporting rape if that's how it came across. Was just more of a deeper philosophical thing. On to the next topic!

[Beaker]

(06-08-2016, 01:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: If a girl steps over a rail at the Grand Canyon and someone pushes her over the edge is the victim to blame for her fall?

Did a lack of common sense contribute to the fall? Would the fall have been as likely if the person had stayed behind the rail....pushed or not? Forget a woman being raped, and put it in the context of a man being robbed and assaulted. Like I said, if I woke up in a hospital bed after passing out to find out I was robbed and beaten, I would consider myself a victim. But I would also be mad at myself for being stupid enough to get so drunk I was not able to defend myself. I would feel that if I had not done so, the event would've been far less likely to have occurred. I would not have expected to be beaten and robbed, but I darn sure knew something bad could happen to me if I put myself in that compromised position.

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 03:23 PM)Au165 Wrote: Hey, I won't get bent out of shape it's all good. I don't think your supporting rape if that's how it came across. Was just more of a deeper philosophical thing. On to the next topic!

Thank you for clarifying.
It did seem a touch like I was being accused of validating rape.
That's the problem with a text based venue, where non-professional writers attempt to illustrate what is bouncing around in their head.
Tone is so important in our communication and it is immensely difficult to convey.
Emoticons help, but only so much.
You and I are good, as far as I'm concerned.
We agree on many things.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-08-2016, 05:00 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Thank you for clarifying.
It did seem a touch like I was being accused of validating rape.
That's the problem with a text based venue, where non-professional writers attempt to illustrate what is bouncing around in their head.
Tone is so important in our communication and it is immensely difficult to convey.
Emoticons help, but only so much.
You and I are good, as far as I'm concerned.
We agree on many things.

Screw you.  Tone and all.  

[Rotobeast]

(06-08-2016, 05:03 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Screw you.  Tone and all.  

Well..... now that is just a come on !