Iowa might be FINISHED.
in case 2, if you're a drunk guy at a party and a girl you don't know, possible a girl you hate, comes up and kisses you on the mouth and grabs your cock, DO YOU CALL THE COPS? or does that make you an asshole and a douchebag? (because you'e looking like one now)
You don't seem to understand who i'm defending and who I'm not. I'm defending kevin grady, letting people know that while his desicion to drive drunk was poor, dangerous, and completely stupid, does not make him an axe murderer.
And on a tangent, i'm half heartedly defending the idea that there may be situations, again short of bodily harm, that do not require police involvement. Now this case seems pretty serious and so OBVIOUSLY it isn't one that should be kept 'in house'.
And if you haven't read the three times i already said I wasn't talking about the iowa case, but in general logical puzzlement, then you're fuckiong stupid. don't call me names cause you can't understand my argument.
And to me; truth, knowledge, and intelligence are more important than how i 'look' on an internet message board.
no, the best way to decide laws is to make them a reflection of the public's will. Hypocritical, euphemistic jargon will always be a pale reflection of current beliefs about what is and is not acceptable. And about who is, or is not responsible, and responsible for what. This is why we have the right to trial by a jury of our peers.
And while I do agree with some of Ron Paul's positions, I don't and haven't actively campaigned for him and definitely not for Barr because on the whole I disagree with their positions on what the government has a responsibility to do.
What I think is appropriate is a standard that says that any bodily touching without permission is offensive touching that may be prosecuted under the law, not some personal scale of what's "worth it" to prosecute and what isn't based on my personal views about drunk girls and boobies.
I see no viable reason to distinguish between levels of sexual assault when it comes to whether or not a perpetrator should be prosecuted - that's what our criminal justice system is for.
You're basically arguing for either (a) making something like boob groping a drunken girl not illegal or (b) encouraging women not to report sexual assault crimes that don't rise to your level of worthiness of prosecution.
Both of those options are pretty terrible.
That's not a legal conundrum, that's a fucking outlandish hypothetical situation that doesn't really make sense to talk about.
Good stuff.
I cannot believe this thread went in the direction it did. It is not a question of IF it happened, that is what the legal system is for. The problem is that it's an obvious obstruction of the legal process. They convinced the alleged victim to let untrained criminal investigators handle a criminal complaint with the expectation of justice. The only thing the University could do is file a report with the local law enforcement agencies. The university may have its own police force, but it does not appear they were involved if so.
The details of the events are frightening. Regardless of it being actual or fabricated. I doubt anyone would let their daughter's High School faculty handle an investigation like this, and they are just as qualified as university officials. By qualified, I mean the opposite of course. Nothing stated by the univeristy sounds like anything but a cover up.
you fail. didn't take you long to lose your argument and your temper. congratulations on winning the 'most immature poster' award.
dex: "FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU, I'M DEX FUCK YOU, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME, FUCK YOU. FUCK YOU, YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE. I'M AM AWESOME INTERNET GOD, FUCK YOU."
again, Congratulations.
:eyeroll:
That's not a mischaractarization of what was written at all. Definitely not.
I do wonder, though, what you think you are "teaching" us. You've advanced an argument that there is a level of inappropriate behavior that, while drunk, should not be settled in court. Have I learned anything by your argument that a drunk girl who has her tits grabbed shouldn't press charges? Are any of us more knowledgable by you advancing that argument? Of course not. What I am (I can't speak for others), is skeeved out by someone who makes an argument that a drunk woman shouldn't press charges when she's fondled. Do her right diminish when she's drunk? Do her rights diminish when the perpetrator is drunk? I believe, in both cases, no. And your seeming insistence otherwise makes you seem, as I said, rapey. That's creepy.
If I'm mis-characterizing your argument, then, perhaps rather than lashing out at me (as you have anyone else who's brought issue with you), maybe you should re-examine the deficiency in how you're phrasing it, and not accuse the mass of relatively intelligent people reading it of idiocy.
polite posts have been given polite responses, insulting posts, insulting. According to ms. wolverine, if it was the woman's will to be in a situation where phsyical contact is probable, then such contact wouldn't be against her will.
I'm saying she should sue in civil court not criminal.
It is obviously no one's will to be raped, and rape constitutes bodily harm and so I believe it should be a criminal matter. but a fleeting drunken fondle between peers probably shouldn't be taking up the state's resources when there are more serious crimes to prosecute. (like rape) Now if it's persistant, then it probably rises to the level of harrassment, but that's a different matter altogether.
"According to ms. wolverine, if it was the woman's will to be in a situation where phsyical contact is probable, then such contact wouldn't be against her will. "
Uh what. I never said that nor implied it.
I'm saying there's a gray area, somewhere short of penetration, that is technically illegal, but should probably be handled outside of the criminal courts.
Just wondering- Do you live in Korea because you've had issues in the states? Wouldn't surprise me there, you seem to have too much of a dog in this fight. Either way, I'm done with you. Not because your pseudo intellectualism bores me (which it does) but because I refuse to argue the validity of the above quote with anyone. It's idiotic at best.
No need to go ad hom. His words are bad enough by themselves at this point.
Uck.
there's "ignore" and "make fun of" when this kind of stupid steps up to the plate. and it's obviously too late for ignore.
...would you believe i rarely choose ignore?
just realized i could make more money here teaching rich kids and not have to worry about school shootings, unmotivated students, or fox news. Should jaywalking be a criminal offense? no it's a civil offense. Should name calling be a criminal offense? no. Should looking at someone funny be a criminal offense? I suppose if it rises to the level or harrasment, but that would still be better handled as a civil complaint.
The dog that I have in this fight is that I like educating, it's just what I do.