Answering old threads thread

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Which should immediately prompt you to say "not guilty."

Also, what evidence in his scenario would justify a conviction?
Oh, so it's 'either/or' with you is it? There's room for question if little else with Derf's scenario and obviously there's nothing in it that resembles "evidence" in it that would justify a conviction. How have you not got this yet?
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Quiet at the front. Give the slowpokes a chance to answer.
Gonna be replying to yourself then are you? If you'd read things through properly instead of inventing your own moronic "assessments" about what other people believe in regards to the topic you'd have had your answer multiple times over.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
There are a lot of very old threads here, that haven't been replied to in ages. Many of them are worthy of continued discussion perhaps, but at least many of them are worthy of being answered today just as much as they were whenever they were first posted.

So I intend to post links to old OPs here and address them in this thread, and of course you're welcome to yourself also.

Post #15

You have the God-given right to not be raped. Your right acts as a "trump" against everybody, even your husband.

There are tons of ways, to be raped. "John 'JR' Ewing" rape is anything from leveraging a power disparity, to blackmail, to the direct use of force (once with his wife Sue Ellen), though not so exceptionally brutal that it ever left a mark (through season 11 anyway, caveat).

Rape in all but the most exceptionally brutal cases is basically unprovable in court, it can feel like, so who cares? might be a thought someone's experiencing. You can say all you want that it can't be proven in court. Thomas Jefferson and JR Ewing were rapists, and that means that they were rights violators. This means immoral, in the most grave sense possible within American morality. They never left a mark, just like how a felony perjurer isn't going to leave a mark falsely accusing someone of raping her; but they're both rights violators.

And who cares anyway, about whether it can be proven, or how easy it is to be criminally defamed and slandered by a determined perjurer? That has nothing to do with the absolute God-given right to not be raped, Thomas Jefferson style rape, or any other way. You might find that you yourself are a rights violator, you should take it seriously. You're never going to be arrested and charged, for a variety of reasons, but it's still morally obligatory that you stop violating someone's God-given right. You know, like right now. Like, "Thomas Jefferson stop that." "JR Ewing, knock it off right now."
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Post #15


You have the God-given right to not be raped. Your right acts as a "trump" against everybody, even your husband.

There are tons of ways, to be raped. "John 'JR' Ewing" rape is anything from leveraging a power disparity, to blackmail, to the direct use of force (once with his wife Sue Ellen), though not so exceptionally brutal that it ever left a mark (through season 11 anyway, caveat).

Rape in all but the most exceptionally brutal cases is basically unprovable in court, it can feel like, so who cares? might be a thought someone's experiencing. You can say all you want that it can't be proven in court. Thomas Jefferson and JR Ewing were rapists, and that means that they were rights violators. This means immoral, in the most grave sense possible within American morality. They never left a mark, just like how a felony perjurer isn't going to leave a mark falsely accusing someone of raping her; but they're both rights violators.

And who cares anyway, about whether it can be proven, or how easy it is to be criminally defamed and slandered by a determined perjurer? That has nothing to do with the absolute God-given right to not be raped, Thomas Jefferson style rape, or any other way. You might find that you yourself are a rights violator, you should take it seriously. You're never going to be arrested and charged, for a variety of reasons, but it's still morally obligatory that you stop violating someone's God-given right. You know, like right now. Like, "Thomas Jefferson stop that." "JR Ewing, knock it off right now."
I was considering this the other day when I was doing yard work and meant to come back to it. Rape is a form of assault. Imagine going to the authorities and saying that you were assaulted by someone - a neighbor, a friend, a relative, a stranger - but there is no evidence of the assault - no bruises, no broken bones, no bloody lip, no skin under your fingernails from attempting to resist the assault, no record of it, video or otherwise, and of course the perpetrator denies it.

What are the authorities to do with this information?
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I was considering this the other day when I was doing yard work and meant to come back to it. Rape is a form of assault. Imagine going to the authorities and saying that you were assaulted by someone - a neighbor, a friend, a relative, a stranger - but there is no evidence of the assault - no bruises, no broken bones, no bloody lip, no skin under your fingernails from attempting to resist the assault, no record of it, video or otherwise, and of course the perpetrator denies it.

What are the authorities to do with this information?
Yes. Correct. And yet it certainly is an actual crime. Being threatened, intimidated, menaced, these are, when credible, assault in the common law sense I believe, I think today someone actually has to touch you, but either way, if there's no obvious physical evidence (like, if there's no "smoke" then there's no fire), that is categorically 100% unrelated to whether it's still a crime, and that you should stop.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yes. It's either "guilty" or it's "not guilty."

Did you think you could just make up things to replace the scenario that was presented and pretend to be a useful part of the conversation?
Did you think that you could just snip a quote (again) and pretend that you've not made a complete clown of yourself in doing so (again)?

There's no way a guilty/not guilty verdict can even be given in Derf's scenario for reasons already outlined and unless your idea of worthwhile contribution to this conversation involves failing to read posts properly and wrongfully accusing others of things they don't even remotely ascribe to then the nearest corn cob could give better input...
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Of course there is. There is no evidence of rape, so the verdict should be "not guilty."

Why is this so hard for you?
It isn't, remotely. Derf's scenario wouldn't have even made it to court and if you actually read people's posts properly you'd know that nobody would advocate the man being found guilty based on his lame hypothetical. Cases need evidence so no verdict even required. Maybe if you spent less time quote mining and making dumb assertions you'd have got the memo.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So...

"Not guilty," then?
As you seem to be stuck on loop let me make the clear even clearer - even to you. Cases require evidence to get to court in our legal systems and the likes of Derf's feeble scenario don't count, remotely. If only you put so much effort into taking the guy to task who wouldn't consider it rape if a husband did force himself on his wife...
 

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
The question I was responding to by stripe asked "What evidence would you need to convict?"

"You"

Not "you if you were a judge"
Judges or juries convict not random people , you dork.
Never, in 18 long years 😁
Wily little guy.
I was warned often for lying, and usually defended it as a natural extension of my opponents argumentation. Knight usually accepted it.

I try not to lie maliciously.
You do it naturally. No trying needed.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So, "not guilty" then, right?
No. At this point you're either thick or willfully dishonest or both. There's no "verdict" in this as as explained numerous times already. In order for a verdict there'd have to be sufficient evidence in order for a case to make it to court. Now, you do get that right? Right? That ain't gonna be happening with Derf's scenario is it? You get that too, right? If I'm walking you through this too fast then let me know.

So, presuming you have managed to follow along then the best you can ask people to do with the vagueness of his scenario is offer an opinion and the only real honest one is that it's unknown. The husband could be innocent, he could also be guilty. It's possible that the wife's friend could have overblown the wife's complaint or misconstrued it, it could also be possible that the wife described her husband forcing her into sex in which case he would be guilty of rape. Given the lack of specifics it can't be determined one way or the other.

Y'all clear now?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There's no "verdict."

So, "not guilty," right?

In order for a verdict there'd have to be sufficient evidence in order for a case to make it to court.

Nope. The scenario proposed a trial. Regardless of how unlikely you think that might be, to respond sensibly, you have to address the scenario as presented. Or you could just ignore it.

Now, you do get that right? Right? If I'm walking you through this too fast then let me know.

Given the lack of specifics it can't be determined one way or the other.

So, "not guilty," right?

Y'all clear now?

Oh, I've been quite clear for quite some time now. :D
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So, "not guilty," right?



Nope. The scenario proposed a trial. Regardless of how unlikely you think that might be, to respond sensibly, you have to address the scenario as presented. Or you could just ignore it.

Now, you do get that right? Right? If I'm walking you through this too fast then let me know.



So, "not guilty," right?



Oh, I've been quite clear for quite some time now. :D
Nope.

Well, he should have concocted a better scenario then shouldn't he cos the one he's proposed wouldn't make it anywhere near the courtroom. That's the only sensible way to address it. No juror would either be required or expected to give a verdict given the complete derf - sorry, dearth of evidence.

Clearly ignorant sure...
 
Top