United Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
Advertisement
by United Dependencies » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:54 pm
United Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Tungookska » Tue Jul 27, 2010 2:57 pm
by Gravlen » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:09 pm
by Tungookska » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:11 pm
Gravlen wrote:The whole concept of rape by deception is interesting, but honestly not something I'm a supporter of. In my view this case should not fall under the definition of rape (and wouldn't do so in my jurisdiction), and I actually feel the court is going too far - the unethical behaviour here should not be a matter for the criminal courts.
by United Dependencies » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:21 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Gravlen » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:23 pm
Tungookska wrote:Gravlen wrote:The whole concept of rape by deception is interesting, but honestly not something I'm a supporter of. In my view this case should not fall under the definition of rape (and wouldn't do so in my jurisdiction), and I actually feel the court is going too far - the unethical behaviour here should not be a matter for the criminal courts.
this is the least of the silly things israel is doing
by Tokos » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:29 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
by Hydesland » Tue Jul 27, 2010 3:59 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:But you cannot be informed while being deceived, which is the point here.
No, it wasn't consented to. The appearance of consent was obtained, but actual consent was not.
Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.
by Galloism » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:23 pm
Hydesland wrote:Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.
No, it's not akin to that at all, and the fact that you would even draw a comparison is pretty insane.
by Dempublicents1 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 4:56 pm
Tungookska wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
she needs to make up her mind what kind of partner she wants before she gets in bed with them, not after
United Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
Tokos wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:Tokos wrote:It's quite simple. If a woman is okay with sleeping around and happily does so, then it's dishonest and in bad faith to suddenly claim violation in a case like this.
Because a woman who is "okay with sleeping around" can't still have criteria by which she chooses her partners? She must be willing to sleep with any and all partners?
Do brush up on your reading comprehension. I never said anything of the sort.
Hydesland wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:But you cannot be informed while being deceived, which is the point here.
Yes but the uninformed part is not the relevant part when deciding if he is a criminal, it's the deception that is relevant. If he simply omitted what ethnicity he was, and she just assumed that he was Jewish, would he still be a criminal? Obviously not.
No, it wasn't consented to. The appearance of consent was obtained, but actual consent was not.
She consented to have sex, and with a man who is exactly the same as him in EVERYTHING other than that he was not Jewish - which is to say - EXACTLY THE SAME.
Of course, what your comparison really boils down to is the idea that, if one wants sex, they must be willing to have sex with anyone. It's actually rather akin to the argument that, if a woman goes out looking for a one-night stand, she can't be raped, because she was clearly looking for sex. Nice.
No, it's not akin to that at all, and the fact that you would even draw a comparison is pretty insane.
by Hydesland » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:02 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:I think it would be possible to argue that, in a society like Israel, where there is a great deal of strain between people of different ethnicities and religions, a reasonable person would know that his ethnicity or religion might factor into someone's decision on whether or not to have sex. It would, however, be a weaker case than that of clear deception.
To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
Yes, it really is. You have claimed that because she clearly wanted sex and consented to have sex with a Jewish man, she must have been willing to have sex with someone of any ethnicity or religion.
In other words, you've made a similar argument to those who claim that, if a woman goes out to a bar looking for sex, she must be willing to sleep with every man there. You have basically stated that her criteria for acceptable sex partners are irrelevant. She wanted sex, therefore he must have been an acceptable partner.
by United Dependencies » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:22 pm
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.
by Dempublicents1 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:27 pm
Hydesland wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote: In other words, you've made a similar argument to those who claim that, if a woman goes out to a bar looking for sex, she must be willing to sleep with every man there. You have basically stated that her criteria for acceptable sex partners are irrelevant. She wanted sex, therefore he must have been an acceptable partner.
No, I'm not. In fact, not even your strawman of my claim is similar to that. Wanting to have sex with different people is very different to wanting to have sex with EXACTLY THE SAME MAN AND ONLY THAT MAN, but allowing his ethnicity (i.e. nothing really significant other than for religious/cultural reasons) to change.
United Dependencies wrote:
I believe that this is the point of contention in this thread. I think many of us(at least I would) would agree that him actively claiming to be a jewish bachelor would most likely be criminal/fraud/whatever.
by Tahar Joblis » Tue Jul 27, 2010 5:40 pm
United Dependencies wrote:So did the guy actively say that he was a jewish bachelor?
Tungookska wrote:was he actively asked if he was a jewish bachelor?
Dempublicents1 wrote:Very little of the discussion has focused on whether or not he actually lied.
by Quelesh » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:00 pm
by Neu Mitanni » Tue Jul 27, 2010 9:59 pm
Dyakovo wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:Dyakovo wrote:
Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.
What he said.
As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.
I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
This can't be right... You agreed with me... One of us is going to have to change our position or risk starting the apocalypse.
*nods*
by Unhealthy2 » Tue Jul 27, 2010 11:32 pm
Dempublicents1 wrote:To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
by Waterlow » Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:28 am
deception, not rape.
It's ridiculous.
Saw this case last week.
The issue is purely ethnicity/religion in this instance. There was no deception on the facts as he alleges in any event so it is even more unfair.
Under our law the Crown would have to argue that the defendant asserted something that goes to the nature and purpose of the offence itself. A case concerning the offence of causing a person to engage in sexual activity where deception has held up is where the complainant masturbated for a webcam when he alleged he was induced into doing so by what he believed to be a 20yr old female, who turned out to be the father of his ex-girlfriend seeking revenge. Juries have not accepted the argument when inducement was by a bogus marriage ceremony or offer of payment.
The decision of this court would not be followed here, and probably won’t be on appeal.
Dana Pugach, head of the Noga Legal Center for crime victims, suggests the law sometimes takes things too far.
"I think that women still need protection," she said. "But I do think criminal law shouldn't interfere in every case. I think white lies should be permitted in a way. Lying, unfortunately, is a natural part of human relationships and not every lie can be indicted. But defining the limits would be difficult. Logic should be applied to every case."
by Waterlow » Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:59 am
No. Just taken for an idiot.
by Buffett and Colbert » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:01 am
Neu Mitanni wrote:Dyakovo wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:Dyakovo wrote:
Wrong. She consented to sex with "Dudu" a jewish businessman, not Sabbar Kashu an arab. Therefore the "consent" she gave was not informed consent, thus not legally consent, thus it was rape.
What he said.
As has been pointed out repeatedly: fraud vitiates consent. Deniers, repeat that statement until you reach enlightenment.
I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
This can't be right... You agreed with me... One of us is going to have to change our position or risk starting the apocalypse.
*nods*
"Was there ever a man more misunderstood." -- James Bond, Thunderball.
Seriously, it's worse than that. Not only are we both on the same side, we're both on the same side as Kiskaanak. Surely another milestone on the way to 2012.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
by Kiskaanak » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:05 am
Unhealthy2 wrote:Dempublicents1 wrote:To you, perhaps. To her, it mattered. You don't get to decide whether or not her criteria for who she will and will not have sex with are acceptable.
What if she asks him what book he's reading and he says "Great Expectations" when it's really "Madame Bovary," but she only finds that out later and "to her, it matters"? Is this enough to nullify consent? If so, is it rape only if he knows that it matters to her enough to be the difference between yes and no? If it's rape regardless of his state of knowledge, does this not mean that there is a technical possibility that any case of consensual sex could be retroactively considered rape? If the taste in literature is not enough to retroactively render consent null and void, then I ask you where the lines are drawn. Race is enough. What about natural hair color? Blood type? The capacity to taste PTC?
by North Suran » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:10 am
Kiskaanak wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
In my view, what is going on here is a whole lot of rape apologism.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas
by Kiskaanak » Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:26 am
North Suran wrote:Kiskaanak wrote:Neu Mitanni wrote:I think there's something more going on in this discussion than just the legal definition of rape, though. Had the rapist been, say, a Hindu rather than an Arab, I doubt there would be nearly as many apologists and amateur criminal defense attorneys sounding off.
In my view, what is going on here is a whole lot of rape apologism.
I like it how you are agreeing with the statement of a man who would be absolutely condemning this woman if the man she had had sex with wasn't an Evil Arab Muslim.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Europa Undivided, Homalia, La Xinga, Likhinia, Neanderthaland, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, Nivosea, Panagouge, Polanas, Port Carverton, Saiwana, Shrillland, Spirit of Hope, Stellar Colonies, Tiami
Advertisement