Well, it finally happened...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
200$ is deserved as a stupidity tax.

I don't regard anything other than my home completely exempt from search without a warrant, no matter what the law says.

Would you be okay with being stripsearched each time you left Walmart?

[Odin]

Everybody is equal, but some are treated more equally than others.

[Cyclotron]

Well, women tend to be much more victimized by this sort of stuff than men, so it makes sense on a functional level that the laws are biased... they may still be morally objectionable, however.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

Would you be okay with being stripsearched each time you left Walmart?

Give me a break "My home and my person"

The Uni shouldn't have peeked at user files without a valid reason, but I think it's pretty stupid to store pornography on your university account.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I was referencing the posts that suggested he lie (claim the guy tried to touch his genitals, claim he is sexually confused, etc.) to make it look like he had a mitigating "gay panic" defense in hitting the guy. His acts are indefensible, and he needs to own up to that.

The problem is that given my understanding of current university politics he is unlikely to be given a "fair trial", so he has to respond in a slightly more devious fashion.

I actually think that there's a chance this might have been a setup. UberKrux said that the guy concerned is an activist of sorts and he's made no secret of his feelings about homosexuality: perhaps this is a deliberate provocation. I've seen this sort of thing happen before, but most of the time it doesn't get past puerile attempts to rile up the Christians on campus.

[KrazyHorse]

Don't read it as approval to search anything else...

Just a reminder that even institutions don't always follow the law.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger

200$ is deserved as a stupidity tax.

I don't regard anything other than my home completely exempt from search without a warrant, no matter what the law says.

I'm not saying they didn't deserve to be disciplined, just that construing it as SH was risible when there were other regulations available and that threatening them was definitely out of order. Remember this was the early 90s when PC fear was at its peak.

[KrazyHorse]

No prob...and if they'd continued to press a SH charge on me in that situation then I'd have screamed bloody murder too.

But I would be willing to live with a 200$ fine for misusing school property and consider it fair payment for a lesson learnt.

[Thorn]

Ah no one ever listens to my threats... too bad too... I'd love to back them up... everyone is always too chicken......

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Tuberski


On the other hand:

Really, if a guy made a single unwanted advance on a girl, and she hauled off and hit him, who here would be trying to help the girl beat her rap with suggestions of making false claims? Give me a ****ing break.

It seems that, if the above situation occurs, the girl seems to be within every right to hit the guy.

What Uber did was wrong. period.

But, in other circumstances, ie the girl hitting the guy, it would be ignored.

ACK!

I categorically disagree that the girl is within her rights to hit the guy. Women are under the same obligation to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence that men are under. Giving a free pass to physical attacks because of the gender/orientation of the attacker is crap.

[KrazyHorse]

They'd only get a free pass because they probably wouldn't hurt the guy...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, women tend to be much more victimized by this sort of stuff than men, so it makes sense on a functional level that the laws are biased... they may still be morally objectionable, however.

I don't think it does. One of the core rules of our legal systems is that people are innocent until proven guilty. The other is that criminal justice is non-comparative: in other words you are to be punished for committing an actual crime and not merely to be jailed to compensate some oppressed class for crimes you didn't do.

The way that SH and rape are sometimes investigated breaks these rules. When I have raised this objection the answer has been roughly that it doesn't matter if innocent people are punished since innocent women are raped. I find this bizarre since it isn't a comparative issue. After all who would say that innocent people should be jailed because other innocent people are burgled?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I categorically disagree that the girl is within her rights to hit the guy. Women are under the same obligation to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence that men are under. Giving a free pass to physical attacks because of the gender/orientation of the attacker is crap.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is more people would find it acceptable.

ACK!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Frogger
No prob...and if they'd continued to press a SH charge on me in that situation then I'd have screamed bloody murder too.

But I would be willing to live with a 200$ fine for misusing school property and consider it fair payment for a lesson learnt.

Agreed. That's basically my advice to UB. It's often not worth screaming bloody murder over every misuse of the law.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I categorically disagree that the girl is within her rights to hit the guy. Women are under the same obligation to restrain themselves from committing acts of violence that men are under. Giving a free pass to physical attacks because of the gender/orientation of the attacker is crap.

In theory, but not in practice. Some feminists I know would argue that because of the oppression of women in the past, they are more entitled to defend themselves against the physically superior enemy, i.e. men. There are quite a few feminists who believe that passive treatment of such advances, rather than such direct confrontation, encourages rape and violence towards women.

IMO, it's all BS, but it is also holy writ for many PC supporters.