Answering old threads thread

[Idolater]

Well, never watched Dallas so wouldn't know anything about it to be fair, well, apart from JR Ewing getting shot. So little telly to choose from it made headline news in the UK even back at the time.

He got shot like four times lol.

 

[Rusha]

He got shot like four times lol.

Biggest Whodunnit in American television … ever ….

 

[Idolater]

Biggest Whodunnit in American television … ever ….

That was either the first or second time he was shot in the series, once was a hunting accident. The other times were all deliberate lol.

 

[Arthur Brain]

He got shot like four times lol.

Yeah, even in the UK they had "Who shot JR" T shirts that sold out. Dallas was a big soap over here in the early 80's.

 

[Stripe]

Not in Derf's scenario

Great. A straight answer.

it's too vague and lacks detailed specifics.

What evidence would you need to convict?

That's why I broadened it

You should deal with what people say, not pretend that you are the arbiter of what they should say.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Great. A straight answer.



What evidence would you need to convict?

You should deal with what people say, not pretend that you are the arbiter of what they should say.

I gave a straight answer from the get go with Derf's scenario that could hardly have been clearer.

The sort that proves that someone had forced themselves on another. Duh.

Oh wow, are you going for an irony award?! You've failed to read what I said in a clear and straightforward manner. You've made all sorts of asinine and unsupportable statements about how I'd convict someone without evidence or would convict someone on 'implied force' and idiotically claimed that I consider it rape in itself if a woman has regrets after sex.

You are the last person to prattle on about dealing with what people say after your ridiculous antics on here.

 

[ok doser]

Great. A straight answer.

As opposed to gay?

What evidence would you need to convict?

According to Mary the claim by the wife is evidence enough

 

[Stripe]

I gave a straight answer from the get go with Derf's scenario that could hardly have been clearer.

You prattled on about your own scenario and ignored his.

It was over in one word, but you screwed it up and it took you five pages to show where the answer actually lay.

The sort that proves that someone had forced themselves on another. Duh.

Be specific. What would it take, in your view, for the court to say guilty, given Fred's scenario?

Oh wow, are you going for an irony award?! You've failed to read what I said in a clear and straightforward manner. You've made all sorts of asinine and unsupportable statements about how I'd convict someone without evidence or would convict someone on 'implied force' and idiotically claimed that I consider it rape in itself if a woman has regrets after sex. You are the last person to prattle on about dealing with what people say after your ridiculous antics on here.

We're all happy that you've gotten all that out of your system.

As opposed to gay?

That's racist.

According to Mary the claim by the wife is evidence enough

They seem quite desperate to make it into something it's not. Fred's actual words are bad enough. No need to make stuff up.

 

[ok doser]

They seem quite desperate to make it into something it's not. Fred's actual words are bad enough. No need to make stuff up.

In Mary's scenario, the wife would have full justification in a ugly divorce case of deciding that in every instance of what had formerly been considered consensual sex, she had indeed been raped, due to power imbalances, inherent societal structural influences of which she had been previously unaware, blablabla.

I've seen extreme feminists who hold this position and who argue it fervently. The sort of people who eagerly lap up the following:

Third, the focus on group-based oppression has also led many radical feminist thinkers to examine the role of rape itself, and of ideologies about rape, in creating and reproducing not only patriarchy but multiple systems of domination, including racism and colonialism.

Feminist Perspectives on Rape (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Stripe]

In Mary's scenario, the wife would have full justification in a ugly divorce case of deciding that in every instance of what had formerly been considered consensual sex, she had indeed been raped, due to power imbalances, inherent societal structural influences of which she had been previously unaware, blablabla.

I've seen extreme feminists who hold this position and who argue it fervently. The sort of people who eagerly lap up the following:

Third, the focus on group-based oppression has also led many radical feminist thinkers to examine the role of rape itself, and of ideologies about rape, in creating and reproducing not only patriarchy but multiple systems of domination, including racism and colonialism.

Feminist Perspectives on Rape (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If anyone were to say guilty in Fred's scenario, they would face the death penalty under a real justice system, as would the two women.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

According to Mary the claim by the wife is evidence enough

You are a liar.

Derf has trouble separating the definition of rape and how difficult it is to prove in marriage especially. In a marriage unless there are witnesses, proving lack of consent vs consent is hard -- The proverbial he said she said.

 

[ok doser]

You are a liar.

A woman can be enlightened by a friend that an interaction in the recent past was rape although the woman was going to let it go to keep the peace. Repeatedly saying no, never saying yes and weakly giving physical resistance then stopping the resistance for fear of physical injury still involves rape.

 

[Mary Contrary 999]

Whether rape has occurred and whether it can be adjudicated successfully are two different things.
Weren't you permabanned for repeatedly lying and refusing to stop referring to people by the n-word, koban?

 

[ok doser]

Whether rape has occurred and whether it can be adjudicated successfully are two different things.

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

"You"

Not "you if you were a judge"

Weren't you permabanned

Never, in 18 long years

for repeatedly lying

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.

I often do enjoy deliberately lying to make a humorous point. Occasionally the humorous point is missed by the target.

and refusing to stop referring to people by the n-word

Negro I implore you

, koban?

You seem fixated on that one of my many usernames over the years.

Spoiler

 

[Arthur Brain]

You prattled on about your own scenario and ignored his.

It was over in one word, but you screwed it up and it took you five pages to show where the answer actually lay.



Be specific. What would it take, in your view, for the court to say guilty, given Fred's scenario?



We're all happy that you've gotten all that out of your system.

That's racist.

They seem quite desperate to make it into something it's not. Fred's actual words are bad enough. No need to make stuff up.

I didn't concoct any scenario and the answer was given to Derf's in my immediate response to it. That you somehow missed it and idiotically rambled on about how I would convict people without evidence and other rubbish is solely on you. The answer was there from the get go.

Proof. As with any court case. How do you suppose guilty verdicts are arrived at?

Eh, it's kinda expected with you as you do have a tendency to drop yourself in it with these things. In future, do yourself a favour and read what's there and don't be silly enough to quote mine out of context and invent nonsense up that you can't support. That way you won't end up looking like such a clown.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If anyone were to say guilty in Fred's scenario, they would face the death penalty under a real justice system, as would the two women.

There's not enough in Derf's scenario to decide guilt or innocence. It's nowhere near detailed enough.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You are a liar.

You're not really all that surprised though, right?

 

[Stripe]

There's not enough in Derf's scenario to decide guilt or innocence. It's nowhere near detailed enough.

Which should immediately prompt you to say "not guilty."

Also, what evidence in his scenario would justify a conviction?

 

[ok doser]

Also, what evidence in his scenario would justify a conviction?

 

[Stripe]

Quiet at the front. Give the slowpokes a chance to answer.