Advertisement
by The Horror Channel » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:46 pm
by The Norwegian Blue » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:48 pm
Dopeonia wrote:The Norwegian Blue wrote:And how would you suggest doing that? "Fraud voids consent unless we don't like the victim and think the thing she was defrauded about isn't a 'good enough' reason"? Do you think that would be a better law?
Fraud is defined on princeton as "intentional deception resulting in injury to another person "
Getting Arab ccooties should not count as injury, simple as that.
by Neo Art » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:52 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:Neo Art wrote:If there is no intent to commit fraud, there is no fraud.
And intent was in no ways part of the standard I quoted you on. You defined fraud, contextually, thus:Neo Art wrote:To be fraud you have to demonstrate that you would NOT have had sex with this person at all, absent the lie being true.
Which says nothing of intent.
It's like walking into a discussion of murder and defining murder as "one person does something that causes another person to die." You should know better.
by Dopeonia » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:54 pm
The Norwegian Blue wrote:Okay, so non-consensual sex no longer counts as a harm in itself. Brilliant.
Rape victims should definitely have to prove that their rape was sufficiently harmful to them, based on an arbitrary definition of harm in which other people get to decide whether your reasons for not consenting were valid. That's a terrific idea. I mean, it's not like the conviction rate for rape is already abysmal, or like rape victims aren't put through enough hell - being forced to demonstrate harm beyond the fact that the sex was not consensual will make things ever so much better.
by Neo Art » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:10 pm
Dopeonia wrote:
No, if you're more specific about what actually happened, i.e. you were forcefully constrained, or you were penetrated in your sleep, there would be no need to demonstrate harm. If, however, you're relying on an obnoxiously broad use of the word consent, when you really mean that you don't like Arabs, then yes, under that situation, that shouldn't in itself be sufficient. Stop trying to generalise and universalise everything I say into something that applies to all rape victims to imply some sort of slippery slope, when it would actually only apply to rare and very specific sorts of situations.
by Sith Korriban » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:10 pm
by Dopeonia » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:15 pm
Neo Art wrote:Actually, that's exactly what you're saying. You basically just said rape victims don't have to PROVE that what happened ACTUALLY caused them harm, as long as it's something YOU could see causing them harm. It shouldn't be sufficient because YOU don't think it's sufficient.
by Neo Art » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:21 pm
Sith Korriban wrote:Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?
Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.
"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"
vs
"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"
by Sith Korriban » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:28 pm
Neo Art wrote:Sith Korriban wrote:Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?
Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.
"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"
vs
"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"
Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.
by Neo Art » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:29 pm
Sith Korriban wrote:Neo Art wrote:Sith Korriban wrote:Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?
Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.
"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"
vs
"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"
Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.
And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.
by Neo Art » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:31 pm
Dopeonia wrote: I'm sorry for having an opinion on what the law should be.
by Sith Korriban » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:33 pm
Neo Art wrote:Sith Korriban wrote:Neo Art wrote:Sith Korriban wrote:Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?
Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.
"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"
vs
"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"
Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.
And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.
I think the fact that he was convicted implies quite strongly that the question was asked, and answered.
by Tahar Joblis » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:37 pm
Neo Art wrote:Considering you have at this point in your life apparently failed to learn the difference between a "condition" and "a definition"
But more importantly, I didn't post the entirety of all the relevant elements because I had already done so right here
And it is now obvious that you'd rather spend giant missives yelling and screaming
Of course, I picked a relatively robust example to outline the absurdity of your stated position, one in which we could easily adjust the deceptions to be non-accidental to further develop discussion once you realized your mistake and moved to a slightly more correct definition, but you, in your pomposity, have chosen to ignore it. Too bad, I'm bringing it back around. We now say that both of them intended to lie to each other and expected that lie to help them get in the sack, and pronounce their behavior truly fraudulent and not merely a dishonesty that resulted in sex.
We now proceed to the sentencing phase. Judge Neo Art, this woman charges this man with fourteen counts of rape based on the fact that he pretended his brother's Mercedes was his, when it was only borrowed for the week. This man charges this woman with fourteen counts of rape based on the fact that she told him that her natural hair color was auburn when, in fact, it is by now naturally gray.
Neither defendant disputes the facts which either accuser has laid out, for they did indeed deceive one another in order to have sex with one another. Judge Neo Art, under the sentencing guidelines set forth in Jewish Woman Thinks Arab Man Has Cooties, 2010, the standard is 18 months in jail per count of rape by deception. Your Honor, will you sentence these forsaken individuals each to twenty one years in the slammer?
In the sense of the Israeli legal definition, why, yes, this is obvious. And in fact, is likely to happen with great frequency if thoroughly enforced, unless Israel is a remarkably different place than any other I have lived.
In an ordinary sense of rape, in the real moral and ethical sense of sex without consent, to wit, without regard to Israeli law? It is rare to have mutual rape, and this is generally the case where neither party is considered competent to provide consent (e.g., both are drunk, both are children, both are classed as retarded, et cetera). There are four issues in this case that I see worth speaking on.
First is the definition of what strikes me as fraud pure and simple as "rape" in a manner that appears to rely on post facto determination of consent via means well beyond the scope of act or personal identity. We have in the very news article a description of the act in question as "consensual sex," something I view as being fundamentally at odds with "rape."
Second is the legal principle of punishment fitting crime. As an act of fraud, we should see punishment proportionate to the damage caused. "EW EW EW I HAVE ARAB COOTIES IN MAH COOTER BLEACH IT OOOUUUT I TOUGHT HE WAS JOOISH!" is, on a scale of one to ten with one being "That ruined my breakfast" to ten being "That ruined the rest of my life," it's probably realistically around a 2.5. I'm not sure that warrants eighteen months in the slammer.
Third is the fact that every time we have one of these court cases hashed over on NationStates, we usually don't really know what the facts were, especially not from a brief news clip, and not in a plea bargain either, so it's best to speak precisely and caveat everything with "based on what seems to be the case" (et cetera).
Fourth is that people lying their way into others' beds is actually a big issue. And it's not a big issue because it somehow undermines consent when you dye your hair, drive around a fancy car that isn't yours, et cetera. It's a big issue because romance is one of the major angles used for con jobs. This is all about fraud and not at all about sex. Let's move back over to the US, which most of us are more familiar with (myself included). Actually, I'm going to talk about life below the salt in the US.
Ladies love a military man, because he actually has a job. A steady job that he can keep for a long time, and if he doesn't completely fuck up, it'll get him other jobs afterwards. And the benefits are great, even if the pay is cruddy, so if you set yourself up with a military man, you might be putting down most of the cash on rent and such, but he'll make it up to you easily when you take advantage of his non-cash benefits. Only the red tape is tied up. The military messes things up, dontcha know? He's been trying to get it sorted out but it might take a while. And then one day you go down to base looking for him, and he isn't there, and nobody can tell you where he is, and you wonder. And then you have to have an operation, and you try to get through the red tape, and you discover the cold fact: That man wasn't in the military at all. He was just playing you the whole time. He may have gone as far into the military as failing basic training, which is where he picked up that uniform, but it might also just be from the military surplus store.
You might even be married by then. Have a kid on the way. And everything he's ever told you has been a lie. And it's not three hundred and seventy four counts of rape spread out over three years that you're after filing, since you never would have taken up with the schmuck if you knew he was unemployed and dealing drugs haphazardly to make petty cash; he may not be half the man you'd thought he was, but he was still the same man you let into your life. He didn't rape you. He conned you. And yeah, the judge should bring the hammer down on him as best as he can at that point, because he's done some real damage there - eighteen months in the slammer would be light in my opinion, at that point.
Guy conned you into sleeping with him by pretending to belong to your religion when he wasn't even thinking about converting? It's not rape. It's a con job. And if all she did was sleep with him once and then, a month later, find out that the guy was an Arab and freak out, it wasn't even that big of a con job.
Neo Art wrote:rape = sex + lack of consent
lack of consent = lack of informed agreement when such lack of informed agreement is due to intentional misrepresentation
Sith Korriban wrote:Neo Art wrote:Sith Korriban wrote:Neo Art wrote:Yes, a profound one. And it's that difference that makes...well...all the difference.Sith Korriban wrote:Is there a difference between lying to make oneself more appealing for sex, and lying in full knowledge it is the only way there will be sex?
Because if there apparently isn't, then that's stupid.
"Yeah, I know some famous people, they love my Mercedes."
"Oooooh... let's hook up!"
vs
"I only, only have sex with people who drive a Mercedes."
"I drive one!"
"Let's hook up!"
And thus one might ask if he knew her consent would only be given if he was Jewish, or if he just thought she might find him more appealing if he said he was.
I think the fact that he was convicted implies quite strongly that the question was asked, and answered.
Not necessarily, taking into account the possibility of racism-based wrongful conviction. If he did know that for sure, then yes, he is guilty. If he didn't, then Justice is currently being reamed from behind by Bigotry, so to speak.
by Bendira » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:40 pm
by Zatarack » Sat Jul 24, 2010 11:44 pm
by Quelesh » Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:05 am
by Tungookska » Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:18 am
Quelesh wrote:
God apparently disapproves of Jewish penis as well, since he makes them cut part of it off.
by Ashmoria » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:17 am
by Tungookska » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:20 am
Ashmoria wrote:
wow
leaving off any question of how he identified himself ethinically/religiously, how could she think that hooking up with a stranger she had just met in the most casual of circumstances was in any way an indication that he was looking for a serious long term relationship?
by Ashmoria » Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:25 am
Tungookska wrote:Ashmoria wrote:
wow
leaving off any question of how he identified himself ethinically/religiously, how could she think that hooking up with a stranger she had just met in the most casual of circumstances was in any way an indication that he was looking for a serious long term relationship?
he seduced her with his evil non jewish arab mind powers and then raped her
by Dyakovo » Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:21 am
Tahar Joblis wrote:Kiskaanak wrote:The penal code in question makes it an offense to obtain consent to sex by engaging in deception as to WHO HE IS.
And here, precisely, is the crux of the matter. Who he is is some guy that she met and hung out with. That, there was no deception about. There is only deception here as to what his religion/race was.
In no part, in no way, was he pretending to be someone he was not, as in Kiskaanak's persistent analogy.
by Tahar Joblis » Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:23 pm
Dyakovo wrote:Tahar Joblis wrote:Kiskaanak wrote:The penal code in question makes it an offense to obtain consent to sex by engaging in deception as to WHO HE IS.
And here, precisely, is the crux of the matter. Who he is is some guy that she met and hung out with. That, there was no deception about. There is only deception here as to what his religion/race was.
In no part, in no way, was he pretending to be someone he was not, as in Kiskaanak's persistent analogy.
Yes, he was. He was pretending to be a jew when he is an arab.
In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.
High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."
Rubinstein said the question was also whether an ordinary person would expect such a woman to have sex with a man without the false identity he created.
In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.
One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud.
A point which is rarely mentioned in the coverage of the "rape by deception" case - either by Israeli or foreign media - is that the case started out as a regular rape case. The woman claimed she was forcibly raped by Kashour. Once on the stand, however, the defense demolished her story and she admitted she lied and that they had consensual sex. She admitted that after learning Kashour lied to her, she felt humiliated and went to the police. It was at that point the prosecution came up with the plea bargain. A normal court would have just acquitted Kashour, but this court decided to convict.
Several further points:
1. If the woman had told the true story to the police in the first place, there would have been no trial, not to mention any conviction.
2. Kashour has no earlier convictions. In another "rape by deception"" case, which involved a lesbian masquerading as a man in order to have sex with women, she received only six months of suspended sentence. Kashour got 18 months of incarceration.
3. One of the three judges is Moshe Drori, who was embroiled in a scandal last year, when he refused to convict a very well connected yeshiva boy who admitted - and was filmed - running over a security guard with his vehicle. The security guard was an Ethiopian woman. Drori, a Jewish Orthodox, forced the guard to accept the apology of the yeshiva boy, and then invoked a judgment by 12th century scholar Maimonides (I shit you not), which says once an apology is accepted by the victim, the case is closed. And he closed the case. He is apparently a Maimonidas affectionado. The case was overturned in the Supreme Court, and this schtick cost Drori his chance at becoming a Supreme Court justice. Let's say that a non-Jew masquerading as a Jew won't stand much of a chance in the court of Judge Drori.
Without the new legislation, police and prosecutors are virtually helpless when someone reports a rape that occurred because the victim was deceived or tricked into consenting. Legislators cited a case in western Massachusetts in which a woman consented to intercourse with her boyfriend's brother because he claimed to be the woman's boyfriend.
In another case of "fraud" rape, a lab technician posed as a medical doctor and sexually assaulted a woman. Legislators said they hope changing the law will prevent future rapes and bring those guilty of any form of rape to justice.
by Dempublicents1 » Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:43 pm
Zephie wrote:Yeah, with the Jew woman's logic, 95% of men who say "I love you" to a girl and has sex with her should be sent to prison for rape.
Dopeonia wrote:Neo Art wrote:The whole point is the law DOESN'T care about "subjective emotional harm". The law cares about CONSENT. It cares about freely given, informed consent. And she didn't give it. Thus she was raped.
rape = sex + lack of consent
lack of consent = lack of informed agreement when such lack of informed agreement is due to intentional misrepresentation
ergo rape = sex + intentional misrepresentation which leads to a lack of informed agreement
I don't know how much simpler I can make this for you.
Then the law needs to be made more robust to account for absurd situations like this.
by Dyakovo » Sun Jul 25, 2010 5:22 pm
Tahar Joblis wrote:Dyakovo wrote:Tahar Joblis wrote:Kiskaanak wrote:The penal code in question makes it an offense to obtain consent to sex by engaging in deception as to WHO HE IS.
And here, precisely, is the crux of the matter. Who he is is some guy that she met and hung out with. That, there was no deception about. There is only deception here as to what his religion/race was.
In no part, in no way, was he pretending to be someone he was not, as in Kiskaanak's persistent analogy.
Yes, he was. He was pretending to be a jew when he is an arab.
That's not a who, that's a what.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Emotional Support Crocodile, Ethel mermania, Google [Bot], Kypros Island, The Holy Therns
Advertisement