New rape law allows change of mind

[Ned]

Agathon, I agree with your observation on the California case where the girl three times stated her desire to go home rather than demand for the boy to stop. Under the circumstances, it appears she was saying for the man to hurry up, not to stop. His crime was to continue longer than she wanted.

I think the California Supreme Court of California was wrong to call this rape.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, Kobe's soooooo demonized.

Are you f'ing kidding me?!!

Where? You tell me where he's being demonized. In the sports pages? Not so I've noticed? On tv? Nope, not there either. Okay, so I haven't been to a sports bar in a couple months, maybe all those fans have demonized him.

O.J. Simpson was demonized. Everyone and their moma said he did it. I don't hear anyone talking about Kobe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker


Read your first sentence. Then read your second sentence. Is this sort of like the "gradual change in views" that you attribute to conservatives as an explanation for why they aren't rapists?

Oh, and let us just look at what you claimed wasn't a statement that "athletes in general abuse women".

In my experience, there are a lot of men, especially associated with sports, who don't care a lot about what women think or say.

So, where do I write that atheletes in general abuse women? Oh, right, I didn't.

[Kuciwalker]

I'll break it down for you.

"In my experience" (It is my opinion that)

"there are a lot of men" (men in general)

"especially associated with sports" (specifically, men who are athletes)

"who don't care a lot about what women think or say" (under your definitions, abuse women)

Clear enough? I don't think it can get any more spoon-fed than that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

skywalker does have you in a bind, che .

[Dr Strangelove]

I must admit that I see the court's point when you consider that this fellow had a matter of minutes to stop what he was doing. I'm willing to bet that the decision would have been different if her request had occured just seconds before he reached climax.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ned

I think the California Supreme Court of California was wrong to call this rape.

You know I always think this big hoo-haa over whether something is or is not rape is misguided. It isn't as if the word we use somehow determines the badness of the crime.

You could call this rape if you wanted to, or you could call it anything you like, but it still wasn't the same sort of crime as the one where someone knocks a woman unconscious and violates her, and it should not attract anywhere near the same punishment.

And please don't anyone say "but rape is rape" because I know that and I also know that "murder is murder" and that "badgers are badgers" and that "mushy peas are mushy peas". A tautology is not an informative statement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You know I always think this big hoo-haa over whether something is or is not rape is misguided. It isn't as if the word we use somehow determines the badness of the crime.

It will to the guy in the future. It won't show on his record how serious it was, it will merely say what he was convicted of.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You know I always think this big hoo-haa over whether something is or is not rape is misguided. It isn't as if the word we use somehow determines the badness of the crime.

It will to the guy in the future. It won't show on his record how serious it was, it will merely say what he was convicted of.

I agree. But I'd like to see this attitude vanish; or at least some more accurate nomenclature.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
skywalker does have you in a bind, che .

No he doesn't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Agathon


I agree. But I'd like to see this attitude vanish; or at least some more accurate nomenclature.

That's why they tend to use the term sexual assault now, with varying degrees of severity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker
"who don't care a lot about what women think or say" (under your definitions, abuse women)

Clear enough? I don't think it can get any more spoon-fed than that.

That still doesn't show where I wrote "atheletes in general abuse women." I didn't, and you're hard pressed to infer that from what I actually did write.

How do you go from:

In my experience, there are a lot of men, especially associated with sports, who don't care a lot about what women think or say.

to:

athletes in general abuse women

A lot does not equal in general.

Men associated with sports does not equal atheletes.

Not caring about what women think and say does not equal abuse of women.

Now, let's see if you can follow this.

Men who abuse women tend not to care about what they think or say. Would you agree this is true or do you think the majority of women who are abused are abused by people who actually do care about their feelings? Even if you accept this, does this then mean that the majority of people who discount the thoughts and feelings of women are then abusers? Did I write anywhere that they were?

How many men associated with sports are atheletes? Well, aside from the atheletes, there are coaches, trainers, booster, and then there are the fans. There can be literaly millions of people associated with a specific team, though for simplicity's sake, I'd be happy to only include "super fans."

Finally, we come to a lot. What does that mean? Does it mean most? It could, but not necessarily. Maybe 20% is a lot. It is compared to 5%. What does it mean in this context, that men who are interested in sports are more likely than men who are not interested in sports to be dismissive of women.

Lastly, we get to the key phrase in my experience. To this, I'm going to have to say, who the **** are you to tell me what my experience has or hasn't been. You've never met me. You barely know me. It might surprise you that I was a double letterman at my high school. I also went to two different colleges and knew a few members of the various sports teams and the people who hung out with them. So I have a fair amount of experience, and it's my experience, not yours.

So, lastly we get to two other statements.

athelets tend to have very macho views and behavior

Do you know any atheletes? Are they meek and humble? Do they tend to act macho?

And lastly:

there is a correlation between such views and bahavior and the treatment of women.

But wait, there's a word missing. Gasp! I didn't use the word abusive.

What's a correlation? That means that one set of numbers seems to move in a relationship (direct or inverse, geometric or straight, etc.). In this case, I assert that as one set of behaviors, macho views, goes up, so does a dismissive attidtude toward women.

One could then logically infer that from there that I meant you can assume that there is a correlation between not caring about women to doing them harm.

Still, that's a far cry from saying atheletes in general abuse women.

So, uh, what this problem you have with assuming I'm imputing things in general. You've done it in two threads now assuming I said things I didn't say.

[Kuciwalker]

How do you go from:

In my experience, there are a lot of men, especially associated with sports, who don't care a lot about what women think or say.

to:

athletes in general abuse women

Man, you STILL don't get it.

"There are" means, there exists
"A lot of men" means, a significant number of men
"especially associated with sports" means, not only a significant number of men, but an even HIGHER number of those associated with sports (proportionally). Do you know what a person associated with sports is called? I like to use the term "athlete".
"who don't care a lot about what women think or say". Now, since YOU think of this as abusive nature (or at least indicative of abusive nature), we're going to say "who would abuse women". Am I simple enough for you? Should I be going goo-goo ga-ga wike a wittle baby?

So, if you believe there are a significant number of male athletes, ABOVE AND BEYOND the general population of males, who are abusive towards women, the next logical conclusion is that there is a greater tendancy for an athlete to abuse women. The NEXT logical conclusion is that in general, athletes are more abusive of women than other groups of people. Thus, you will say that "because so-and-so is an athlete, he is more likely to have abused this women". EVEN IF THIS IS STATISTICALLY TRUE, you are making a general statement about a DIVERSE GROUP OF PEOPLE, giving them a common, OFFENSIVE, appelation.

This is just the same as your other blanket statements about conservatives and non-feminists.

[Gibsie]

A lot of Apolytoners are dumbasses. I guess that means in general that all of us are dumbasses.

[Japher]

nice flame