RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian [Archive]

Malthus

07-21-2010, 03:29 PM

""In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official. "

What context is he talking about? Is it that Good jewish girls only have casual pre-marital sex with Jewish boys. Or is it the notion that if you had a child as a result of sex with a West Bank or gaza Palestinian, the child might be expelled from Israel upon reaching majority so women would be reluctant to have sex with Palestinians generally. Or is it that Israel has institutionalized racism for much the same reason that Magellan wants to be "wary" of muslims??

And people still think Carter is an anti-semite for comparing this situation to Apartheid. :boggle:

What I'm 'boggling' about is how you are taking one incident - highly criticized within Israel at that - and, generalizing the hell out of it, claiming it proves Israel is an apathied society.

Fact is, I don't think the 'rape by deception' law make sense, but assuming it does then arguably a married guy claiming he's a single of a different ethnic group would "qualify" as much as a guy claiming to be a rock star or surgeon.

Fact is, who people choose to have sex with is still something they are *allowed* to be "racist" about. A woman (or man) can be totally irrational on this score, and as 'racist' as any KKK member [i]in voluntarily decising to have sex with someone[i] - if they don't like Blacks, or *only* like Blacks, or Arabs, or Jews, or whomever - that's their business; and tricking or fooling 'em by pretending to be who you are not is at least ethically repugnant (though as i said, I disagree with it being a matter for criminal law).

Jackmannii

07-21-2010, 04:07 PM

According to this article (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-19/news/mn-33953_1_fantasy-man), about 40 U.S. states have "rape by fraud" laws.

One noteworthy case was that of Tennessee's "Fantasy Man":

"NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The phone rings late at night. In a sexy whisper, a man persuades a woman to unlock her door, undress, put on a blindfold and wait for him in bed.

At least three women did so, thinking he was their boyfriend, and had sex with the so-called Fantasy Man--one woman twice a week for two months.
Now they want police to charge Raymond Mitchell III with rape.

The 45-year-old businessman says he was just fulfilling the women's fantasies and the sex was consensual.

Police aren't sure what to do. Investigators are looking at whether Mitchell claimed to be someone else, which could constitute rape by fraud.

Fantasy Man has become the talk of Nashville. And tabloid television has been calling.

"My callers can't believe how incredibly stupid, gullible and horny women can be," said WLAC talk radio host Dave Macy."

(Good luck getting a date, Mr. Macy.)

In the midst of the hysteria in the Boston area over the Boston Strangler murders in the '60s, there was a guy posing as a physician who specialized in calling up women, telling them he'd met them earlier at a party on Beacon Hill and wondered if they could get together.
He wound up, um, intimate with an amazing number of them. The Boston P.D. eventually nabbed him on a charge of "gross lewdness".

I suspect these sorts of rape by fraud laws are on the books in other countries as well.

Assuming that ethnic/religious prejudices/taboos in relation to sex are unique to Israel, strikes me as at the very least, incredibly naive.

sleeping

07-21-2010, 04:30 PM

What I'm 'boggling' about is how you are taking one incident - highly criticized within Israel at that - and, generalizing the hell out of it, claiming it proves Israel is an apathied society.

Fact is, I don't think the 'rape by deception' law make sense, but assuming it does then arguably a married guy claiming he's a single of a different ethnic group would "qualify" as much as a guy claiming to be a rock star or surgeon.

Fact is, who people choose to have sex with is still something they are *allowed* to be "racist" about.

Except that not only is this law on the books, but the judge said

Although conceding that the sex was consensual, district court judge Tzvi Segal concluded that the law had a duty to protect women from "smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price"

and a former Israeli ministry official says

Israeli legal experts said they found the verdict disquieting.

"In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official.

So either the judge is racist, or he is indicating that--in his opinion as a judge--Israeli society is racist, or both.

sleeping

07-21-2010, 04:39 PM

According to this article (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-19/news/mn-33953_1_fantasy-man), about 40 U.S. states have "rape by fraud" laws.

That's actually really interesting because the situations involved are so ambiguous. For example, one woman realized that it wasn't her husband immediately but went along with it because she feared violence--in this case, neither party would have any way of indicating their motive to the other, and it would be difficult to prove rape. OTOH, one can also see how she would be justified in her actions during and after the act.

In the midst of the hysteria in the Boston area over the Boston Strangler murders in the '60s, there was a guy posing as a physician who specialized in calling up women, telling them he'd met them earlier at a party on Beacon Hill and wondered if they could get together.

Wait, so...what exactly was his "in"? And what does it have to do with the Boston strangler?

kaylasdad99

07-21-2010, 04:59 PM

Judge is a "she," jftr.

Jackmannii

07-21-2010, 05:03 PM

Wait, so...what exactly was his "in"? And what does it have to do with the Boston strangler?This story was recounted in Gerald Frank's "The Boston Strangler". He used it as a bizarre illustration of how on the one hand, women in the area were panicking over the murders and taking extraordinary security precautions, while at the same time many were leaving themselves vulnerable to this con artist.

If I understand your first question - his "in" was the line about having met them at some party or other (at the time there were a lot of parties on "the Hill", and women apparently figured they'd met him even if they couldn't remember his name). I'm sure he struck out a lot too, but persistence paid off.

Malthus

07-21-2010, 05:15 PM

Except that not only is this law on the books, but the judge said

Although conceding that the sex was consensual, district court judge Tzvi Segal concluded that the law had a duty to protect women from "smooth-tongued criminals who can deceive innocent victims at an unbearable price"

The same law is on the books in many other places, including some US states.

What the judge said is that people who lie to get sex are "smooth tounged criminals". How exactly is that some sort of proof of racism in society?

Even if this particular woman is as racist as a barrel of KKK members, it is her right to choose not to sleep with someone - because she doesn't like his skin colour or his ancestry or whatever.

and a former Israeli ministry official says

"In the context of Israeli society, you can see that some women would feel very strongly that they had been violated by someone who says he is Jewish but is not," said a former senior justice ministry official.

So either the judge is racist, or he is indicating that--in his opinion as a judge--Israeli society is racist, or both.

What a "former Israeli minister official" says has no bearing on what the Judge ordered.

Nevertheless, he's merely stating a truism - that many women in Israeli society would feel unhappy about having sex with someone who is not Jewish, if they had been lied to about the matter. That would be true outside of Israel, too.

For that matter, many Christians would have a problem having sex with someone who is lying about being Christian, and many Indians would have a problem with having sex with someone who is lying about being Indian.

Is this somehow controversial? :smack:

Onomatopoeia

07-21-2010, 05:16 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7901025/Palestinian-jailed-for-rape-after-claiming-to-be-Jewish.html

Basically, a very naughty Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to a girl he met in the street, and they had sex like ten minutes later.

She found out he is an Arab, and he is going to jail.

For rape.

Basically she is such a racist that it is rape for her to have dirtied herself by having sex with an Arab.

1980's South Africa is chortling.Disgusting, and one of a piece with other exhibitions of rationalized discrimination and racism, not to mention hypocrisy, sanctioned in Israeli law. Color me unsurprised.

Onomatopoeia

07-21-2010, 05:49 PM

The same law is on the books in many other places, including some US states.I didn't know that but, okay, when was it last enforced?
What the judge said is that people who lie to get sex are "smooth tounged criminals". How exactly is that some sort of proof of racism in society? That quote is not proof of racism, no. I don't see, however, how lying to get sex makes one a criminal. If that were the case, just about every man on the planet would be a criminal. So it's not "people" who lie to get sex that's the problem, it's the type of people who are lying that determines the criminality, which is discriminatory.
Even if this particular woman is as racist as a barrel of KKK members, it is her right to choose not to sleep with someone - because she doesn't like his skin colour or his ancestry or whatever. Obviously she liked what she saw, and obviously she liked what he said, so much so that she opened her legs to him within minutes of meeting, which exposes her as no paragon of virtue in the first place. I agree that it is her right to choose who she sleeps with, and she chose.
What a "former Israeli minister official" says has no bearing on what the Judge ordered.

Nevertheless, he's merely stating a truism - that many women in Israeli society would feel unhappy about having sex with someone who is not Jewish, if they had been lied to about the matter. That would be true outside of Israel, too.

For that matter, many Christians would have a problem having sex with someone who is lying about being Christian, and many Indians would have a problem with having sex with someone who is lying about being Indian.None of which should send someone to jail, especially when we know damned well the penalty would not be the same if the roles were reversed.

From the linked article...
I would like to raise only one question with the judge. What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman. Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not.

Is this somehow controversial? :smack:No, sadly, but it should be.

Malthus

07-21-2010, 06:04 PM

I didn't know that but, okay, when was it last enforced?

There is a lengthy article (sorry, PDF) on this topic entitled "RAPE BY FRAUD AND RAPE BY COERCION", 64 Brook. L. Rev. 39. Apparently, it is a reasonably major topic.

www.justdetention.org/pdf/Rape%20by%20Fraud.pdf

That quote is not proof of racism, no. I don't see, however, how lying to get sex makes one a criminal. If that were the case, just about every man on the planet would be a criminal. So it's not "people" who lie to get sex that's the problem, it's the type of people who are lying that determines the criminality, which is discriminatory.

That isn't even true in the Israeli case, let alone generally. The leading Israeli case involved a Jewish guy who was pretending to be a gov't official to get sex; another, about a Jewish guy pretending to be a famous surgeon to get sex.

This is the first case where the lie is about being Jewish.

Obviously she liked what she saw, and obviously she liked what he said, so much so that she opened her legs to him within minutes of meeting, which exposes her as no paragon of virtue in the first place. .

Is this not perilously close to 'she's a slut, and so can't be raped'?

I agree that it is her right to choose who she sleeps with, and she chose.

The basis of the law (agree with it or not) is that a choice based on a lie isn't a real choice; that concent obtained by fraud is no more "consent" than concent obtained by coercion (see article cited above).

None of which should send someone to jail, especially when we know damned well the penalty would not be the same if the roles were reversed.

I agree that "rape by fraud' is a bad law, subject to abuse. I do not agree that if a Jewish guy pretended to be an Arab to screw an Arab woman, that an Israeli judge would inevitably find him innocent based on this law (particularly if this precedent survives appeal!)

Fact is, there are many things wrong with Israeli society, but their judiciary often rules in ways that would surprise those who automatically assume Israel is evil.

No, sadly, but it should be.

What, women *should* want to sleep with people who are not of their religion or ethnic group?

I wholeheartedly agree (absent the lying about it bit), but I find nothing "aparthied like" about the fact that they generally don't. If it was, the whole damned world is "apatheied like'.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 06:31 PM

So the OP starts by lying about the basic facts of the issue, this is good.

Then Damuri, after his admission that he's a reflexive anti-Israeli bigot (which is my fault, of course) who has to fight not to simply shoehorn any new information into his "I hate Israel!" narrative, spews:

And people still think Carter is an anti-semite for comparing this situation to Apartheid. :boggle:

Of course, the actual facts are that, in Israel, it's a crime to get sex by lying about who you are. If you say you're a movie star and you're not, if you say you're an astronaut and you're not, if you say you're a millionaire and you're not, if you say you're a certain religion and you're not. And, lo and behold, he twists that into "ZOMG! You can't lie about who you are in order to get sex?!?? APARTHEID!!!!"

Sigh.

This judge sounds like the modern Israeli equivalent of a Jim Crow redneck from the 1950's. How typical is that? "Unbearable price?" What was the price? "Serious romantic relationship?" She was a pickup at a bar, is he fucking kidding?

My, how quickly your morals shift Dio (but we already knew that). Yes, the reference to a "serious romantic relationship" is one that might result in the conception of a child. An "unbearable price" might very well be the birth of a child to someone who a woman wouldn't have consented to bear children with if she'd known his true identity. Of course, I'm sure your sliding moral scale will slip back to some other loopy value later, and you won't be advocating that it's totally cool to lie to women and potentially impregnate them. This is just a 'special' situation.

But for this 'special' situation, lying to a woman to get her into a situation where children might result, and the woman objecting that you used false pretenses to get her into bed is totalllly like Jim Crow. Exactly like Jim Crow, actually. identical.

Is there any chance at all that this charge would be made if the "races" were reversed?

Yes, as it's been made against Jews who were impersonating various professions to which they did not belong.

Also, does this "rape by deception" thing apply to Jewish boys who tell girls they have Lamborginis or that they're in the Mossad?

Finding out the facts before you bluster on about Jim Crow style racism is hard.

Laudenum

07-21-2010, 08:22 PM

So the OP starts by lying about the basic facts of the issue, this is good.

How did I lie?

Leaving aside the fact that my OP was written with written in such a way as to force posters to read the article that I linked to prior to responding (the article contains a full, and I think fair account), the fact remains that the only reason that this man is being prosecuted is because he is Palestinian - according to a different account his only 'lie' was calling himself Daniel, thereby implying that he was Jewish.

Nothing in my OP is factually incorrect as far as I can see - the judge's reasoning is clear and ugly.

Vinyl Turnip

07-21-2010, 08:32 PM

Of course, the actual facts are that, in Israel, it's a crime to get sex by lying about who you are. If you say you're a movie star and you're not, if you say you're an astronaut and you're not, if you say you're a millionaire and you're not, if you say you're a certain religion and you're not.

Obviously, since Israeli prisons teem with impostrous movie star millionaire astronauts.

Mince

07-21-2010, 08:44 PM

Actually, since the Israeli woman (almost certainly) has had military training and the Palestinian man (almost certainly) has not, I figure a fairer (or at least more entertaining) solution would be to Thunderdome it.

Um, as a society, we've moved beyond Thunderdome.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 08:45 PM

Yes, as it's been made against Jews who were impersonating various professions to which they did not belong.
It has not been used against Jews for lying about what race they are to get a Palestinian chick in the sack, nor would it ever be.

This guy was not impersonating a doctor or a government agent or anything to trick this chick. He just gave a Jewish name to a girl he picked up at a bar. It's beyond disingenuos to pretend any prosecution would occur if the ethnicities were reversed and you know it. It's pure, undisguised Jim Crow. I'm not surprised you would defend this garbage, though.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 08:48 PM

Obviously, since Israeli prisons teem with impostrous movie star millionaire astronauts.

Well, no, the obvious part would be that lying about your identity to get sex is illegal regardless of what lie you use and no matter who you are.

It has not been used against Jews for lying about what race they are to get a Palestinian chick in the sack, nor would it ever be.

This guy was not impersonating a doctor or a government agent or anything to trick this chick. He just gave a Jewish name to a girl he picked up at a bar. It's beyond disingenuos to pretend any prosecution would occur if the ethnicities were reversed and you know it. It's pure, undisguised Jim Crow. I'm not surprised you would defend this garbage, though.

Dio, shut your face and go try to be less of an idiot, please. I get it, you're a raging anti-Israel bigot and you're willing to lie and imagine whatever the fuck you want as long as it reinforces your bigotry. The law would "never be" enforced if it was a Jew being charged, and we know this because, well, because you're a bigot who hates Israel so you made it up. And it's disingenous to pretend that your bigoted fantasy isn't factual because, well, your bigotry is the really cool kind.
You really are a disgusting bigoted freak though, just because you hate a nationality and not an ethnicity doesn't make it "okay".

Idiot.

The Facts

07-21-2010, 08:51 PM

The jews are racist? Why, I'm shocked!

Poor dude is lucky they didn't try to forcibly circumcize him.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 08:55 PM

The jews are racist? Why, I'm shocked!

It sure is interesting what sort of people these threads almost always bring out.
Yes "The Jews" are all sorts of bad things, preach it!

Jackmannii

07-21-2010, 09:03 PM

Bryan Ekers

07-21-2010, 09:03 PM

Um, as a society, we've moved beyond Thunderdome.

And as Jews, to go by the evangelical goyim when they start yapping about the Rapture, we'll be the ones they've left behind.

sqweels

07-21-2010, 09:05 PM

The point is that she gave her consent. Throughout the sex act, consent was maintained.

A woman cannot retroactively withdraw her consent because a man cannot retroactively... withdraw.

Ionizer

07-21-2010, 09:07 PM

And with society (in general) calling rape a violent and horrible act, why is this even called *rape*?!? ~Deceptive of him? Yes, of course. Typical guy, imho, or so the saying goes. Violent (as per 'rape' connotations - not at all. Not even close. I wonder if that woman said that she that she had never gone down so fast ("I don't normally do this until I know a Jew really well, ya know!" You are super-special to have me do this for you). Every bit as culpable if so. We all know how every woman is a vessel of purity and chasteness at all times - aren't they? (sarcasm here, but I heard it often when I knew otherwise).

At least the guy ain't getting stones thrown at his head 'til death - there's that aspect going for him.

Too bad Frank Zappa is gone as there might be a great song in this re: Catholic Girls (with their tiny little moustache.....) Joe's Garage tune, iirc Not sure why *that* song just became an earworm, but I also hear the Central Scrutinizer wanting to speak, too.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 09:11 PM

Probably something to do with Jim Crow.

Well, duh. We know that if a woman went to the police and made a formal complaint of rape via deception that they'd first ask "Are you Jewish?" and then ask "Was he Muslim" and then, and only then, would they choose whether or not to act. The only reason they'd bring charges against any Jew is if he used fraud to trick someone who was an even bigger Jew than he was into having sex. The guy who pretended to be a neurosurgeon? They discovered that he went to temple only on the High Holy Days, and the chicks he banged were totally in at least every other Shabbat, so they threw the book at the guy. The guy who pretended to have pull with the housing authority? He never even had a bar mitzvah service and one of the women he tricked into having sex was a rabbi's daughter and she kept kosher! (The bailiffs had to pull the judges off the man's limp body after they beat him unconscious and tried to tear him limb from limb).

And, of course, if a Muslim woman were to ever go in and claim that a Jew lied to her to get her in the sack, the police would point to the "hah hah, we hate Muslims" part of the statute and indicate that they would, therefore, not investigate the matter further.
And then they'd rape her.

We know this, because Israelis are all vile racist sneaky lying nogoodniks.
And part of what makes them so horrible, we know, is that they all think something like that about Palestinians (we know). What nerve!

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 09:15 PM

This article (http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/Rape%20by%20Fraud.pdf) on the ramifications of rape by fraud mentions a 1993 case in Israel, where a man named Raine Marcus who posed as a rabbi, was found guilty in nine cases of sexual assault and fraud (supposedly he made claims about "curing" the women).*

Probably something to do with Jim Crow. :dubious:
This does not involve deception about race, but about religious authority.

NONE of this shit should be illegal, but this doesn't even involve the kind coercive manipulation that law was designed to prosecute
Dio, shut your face and go try to be less of an idiot, please. I get it, you're a raging anti-Israel bigot and you're willing to lie and imagine whatever the fuck you want as long as it reinforces your bigotry. The law would "never be" enforced if it was a Jew being charged, and we know this because, well, because you're a bigot who hates Israel so you made it up. And it's disingenous to pretend that your bigoted fantasy isn't factual because, well, your bigotry is the really cool kind.
You really are a disgusting bigoted freak though, just because you hate a nationality and not an ethnicity doesn't make it "okay"
Saying he "lied about his identity" because he gave a fake name to a bar hook up is disingenuous on your part, and you know damn good and well there would be no prosecution if the races were reversed.

hell, they originally wanted to harge this kid with forcible rape -- FORCIBLE, just because he was an Arab kid banging a Jewish girl. Don't tell me that's not Jim Crow.

Mince

07-21-2010, 09:21 PM

And as Jews, to go by the evangelical goyim when they start yapping about the Rapture, we'll be the ones they've left behind.

Yeah, well, you bust a deal, you face the wheel.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 09:26 PM

And, of course, if a Muslim woman were to ever go in and claim that a Jew lied to her to get her in the sack, the police would point to the "hah hah, we hate Muslims" part of the statute and indicate that they would, therefore, not investigate the matter further.
And then they'd rape her.

We know this, because Israelis are all vile racist sneaky lying nogoodniks.
And part of what makes them so horrible, we know, is that they all think something like that about Palestinians (we know). What nerve!
No one said anything about "all Israelis" and your histrionic charges of bigotry are neither true nor an effective defense of this prosecution.

Israel certainly is unduly influenced by bullying, bigoted racist ultra-orthodox factions, though, and this judge is an example. This is not how this law was supposed to be applied and you need to take the beam out of your own fucking eye before you look for the splinters in others.

Guinastasia

07-21-2010, 09:30 PM

T

Even if this particular woman is as racist as a barrel of KKK members, it is her right to choose not to sleep with someone - because she doesn't like his skin colour or his ancestry or whatever.

Nobody said it wasn't. It still doesn't make it rape in this case.

FinnAgain, you have some serious issues. Tell me, how bruised IS your foot nowadays, what with all that knee jerking?

DSeid

07-21-2010, 09:30 PM

... the judge's reasoning is clear and ugly.It is ugly to apply a law as it is written?

It has been established that:

- the law was not designed with any discriminatory intent,

- it has not been applied in a discriminatory manner, its other applications were applied to lies committed by Jews,

- that this particular woman has claimed, and is believed when she claims it, that she would not have desired to have sex with this particular man if she did not believe that he was of her faith/ethnicity.

Whether or not the law is stupid is immaterial: it is not racist or apartheid. Whether or not this particular woman has anti-Arab prejudices is immaterial: she consented to sex on the basis of a fraudulent representation. The judge's reasoning is clear and not at all ugly: her job is not to make the law but to rule on it as it written, whether the lie is about working for the government, about being of a profession other than what you are, or about being of a different faith than what you are.

Laudenum, your untruthful statement was stating that he was "jailed for being Palestinian"; that is untrue - he was jailed for fraudulently representing himself to get sex according to the same law that has jailed Jewish Israelis on the same charge.

Dio makes a bold charge:It has not been used against Jews for lying about what race they are to get a Palestinian chick in the sack, nor would it ever be.It should be easy for him to find cases where a Palestinian Israeli woman accused a Jewish Israeli of that and the man was not charged. Otherwise he should stop making shit up. Of course he could really do that and still be Dio so nevermind.

And by the way, neither Jewish or Palestinian are "races". And both have plenty of individuals who would decline to have casual sex with someone of the other group. And some I am sure who would find that a turn on. And they each have their right to behave accordingly.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 09:44 PM

Nobody said it wasn't. It still doesn't make it rape in this case.
?

Is it, in fact, "rape by deception" under the laws in question to deceive someone into having sex with you? Why yes, yes it is. That does indeed mean that in this case it's "rape by deception".

Dio may want to wallow in his standard pig headed idiocy while spouting off with his hate filled anti-Israel bigotry, but at the end of the day (and the start too), Dio's claims that Israelis are all bad and nobody would prosecute the case if the roles were reversed and Israel is a Jim Crow society (proven by the fact that, well, he really hates them and he uses his hate to prove how bad they are in the hypothetical that he imagined, of course) is just him spewing his hatred and trying to find ways to justify it after the fact.

No one said anything about "all Israelis"

Not only a bigot, but a coward to boot. How surprising! Most racists and bigots are so very honest about the source of their pathological hatred.
Of course, you simply showed that you're a bigot and you're crazed by hatred and you keep claiming that Israeli is a Jim Crow society and that nobody in Israel would bring charges if it was a Muslim woman making the charges, but it's not like you're saying anything about Israel or how much you're bigoted agains tit.

This does not involve deception about race, but about religious authority.

Any deception qualifies under the law. Only in your fevered hate-washed mind does it become about "ayieee, Muslims!" The law has been used, several times before, due to deception used to induce someone to have sexual relations. That statute is not about race. At all.
No, not even if you're really, really full of hate for those who have a certain national identity.

NONE of this shit should be illegal, but this doesn't even involve the kind coercive manipulation that law was designed to prosecute

Ah, now you've studied Israeli jurisprudence and you can tell us the history of the law and the precedents and... oh, wait, no, you're just a idiot. Ah well.

and saying he "lied about his identity" because he gave a fake name to a bar hook up is disingenuous on your part, and you know damn good and well there would be no prosecution if the races were reversed.

Dio, just because people aren't bigots, like you, doesn't mean that not buying into your rancid hatred is "disingenuous". Just because you're a bigot who hates Israelis doesn't mean that we know, based on nothing other than your bigotry, that the Israeli police wouldn't investigate and the Israeli judiciary wouldn't file charges if the fraud wasn't about tricking someone into having sex by pretending to be Jewish. I know, you're full to the brim with hatre, but for a moment try to ask yourself how you'd build your "case" about how horrible Israelis are if you had to rely on facts and not the simple matter of you being bigoted against Israel.

.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 09:47 PM

Dio makes a bold charge:It should be easy for him to find cases where a Palestinian Israeli woman accused a Jewish Israeli of that and the man was not charged.
Why would that be easy to find? Where would that information be recorded?

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 09:49 PM

Finn, you have some serious issues, and I'm not going to join you in your crazy. Hope it works out for you, though.

Guinastasia

07-21-2010, 09:57 PM

Captain Amazing

07-21-2010, 10:08 PM

Question -- does this law also apply to women?

It does. As far as I know, it forbids anyone from using deceit to get someone to sleep with you.

Captain Amazing

07-21-2010, 10:15 PM

The point is that she gave her consent. Throughout the sex act, consent was maintained.

The argument is that she wouldn't have given her consent had he not deceived her. So he committed fraud on her in order to get her consent. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a good law, but I can understand why it exists. You want someone to give informed consent, and to lie to someone so they'll have sex with you is unethical, at least.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 10:17 PM

So is it fraud if someone lies about being married or says "I love you" if they don't.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 10:28 PM

And said law is, in my view, utterly ridiculous

There is a difference between "I do not agree with that law" and "an action which is clearly and objectively a specific crime under a specific law doesn't count because I don't like the law."

Why would that be easy to find? Where would that information be recorded?

You mean, you just made it up because you're a bigot so it sounded like a good thing to say, and you can't prove it so you won't bother?
Surprising!
And yes Dio, you're a bigot who makes stuff up because you can't think when you let your hate wash over you and start making stuff up because it kinda sounds good to you and fits in with your hatred, and obviously folks who aren't fine with just making shit up because they're full of hate must have some real problems! Anybody who isn't bigoted against the same people you hate simply must be crazy if they're not 'merely' disingenuous. Because who but a crazy disingenuous person doesn't hate the same nationalities you do?

Obviously, if someone was properly bigoted and hates the correct nationality, like you, then they'd accept that the hypothetical you made up and certify that the people who are part of the hated national identity would act (hypothetically) as horribly as you imagine.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 10:33 PM

If you can't answer the question, just say so.

FinnAgain

07-21-2010, 10:35 PM

I did answer it. You're a hate filled bigot, you made it up, you can't provide proof because the only proof you have is that you hate Israelis so the hypothetical you made up sounds good to you.

What exactly is confusing you?

Damuri Ajashi

07-21-2010, 10:40 PM

What I'm 'boggling' about is how you are taking one incident - highly criticized within Israel at that - and, generalizing the hell out of it, claiming it proves Israel is an apathied society.

Yeah the naturalization law is highly criticized too. I'm not saying all Israelis are bigots I'm saying the society has institutionalized racism against Palestinians. You don't think that there were South Africans that criticized apartheid?

Fact is, I don't think the 'rape by deception' law make sense.

and in all likelihood of people like you were writing and enforcing Israel's laws, I would have no reason to compare it to South Africa.

Fact is, who people choose to have sex with is still something they are *allowed* to be "racist" about. A woman (or man) can be totally irrational on this score, and as 'racist' as any KKK member [i]in voluntarily decising to have sex with someone[i] - if they don't like Blacks, or *only* like Blacks, or Arabs, or Jews, or whomever - that's their business; and tricking or fooling 'em by pretending to be who you are not is at least ethically repugnant (though as i said, I disagree with it being a matter for criminal law).

But it is criminal in Israel and the law is being applied to this particular case.

The same law is on the books in many other places, including some US states.

And if it enforced in a racist manner then it would be racist.

What the judge said is that people who lie to get sex are "smooth tounged criminals". How exactly is that some sort of proof of racism in society?

Because:

What if this guy had been a Jew who pretended to be a Muslim and had sex with a Muslim woman. Would he have been convicted of rape? The answer is: of course not.

Perhaps this guy is full of shit but if he is then why is there so much criticism of this case in Israel?

What a "former Israeli minister official" says has no bearing on what the Judge ordered.

Yeah but he has some idea of the purpose and prosecution of the laws in Israel.

I do not agree that if a Jewish guy pretended to be an Arab to screw an Arab woman, that an Israeli judge would inevitably find him innocent based on this law (particularly if this precedent survives appeal!)

Do you think that the Jewish guy calling himself Omar in a Palestinian bar would have been the first guy that they prosecuted for this sort of thing?

Fact is, there are many things wrong with Israeli society, but their judiciary often rules in ways that would surprise those who automatically assume Israel is evil.

I agree that the high court does its best to be as fair as possible but they can only be as just as the laws they interpret. If the laws allow for institutionalized prejudice then the high court must do so as well. I have nothing but respect for Jewish legal scholarship (not all Jewish legal scholars but the scholarship, it comes from millenia of tradition of thinking about the law and our legal tradition has incorporated much of that).

Then Damuri, after his admission that he's a reflexive anti-Israeli bigot (which is my fault, of course) who has to fight not to simply shoehorn any new information into his "I hate Israel!" narrative, spews:

When do I admit that I am an anti-Israeli bigot (BTW, when you say anti-Israeli bigot, do you mean anti-semite?)? How am I an anti-Israeli bigot?

How am I any more an anti-Israeli bigot than you are a pro-Israeli, anti-Palestinian bigot?

I don't hate Israel, I hate its policies, "hate the sinner, not the sin" and all that.

Of course, the actual facts are that, in Israel, it's a crime to get sex by lying about who you are.

And do you believe that this law is being enforced blindly (in a "justice is blind" sort of way)?

I get it, you're a raging anti-Israel bigot and you're willing to lie and imagine whatever the fuck you want as long as it reinforces your bigotry.

Yes!!! Raging anti-Israel bigotry is EVERYWHERE, the only possible reason anyone could possibly criticize Israel is because they are bigots.

Damuri Ajashi

07-21-2010, 10:44 PM

It sure is interesting what sort of people these threads almost always bring out.
Yes "The Jews" are all sorts of bad things, preach it!

Your arguments made more sense when you used to try to compare Israel's action with arab actions. Why not compare what is happening to this guy to what would happen to a Jew that conned a muslim girl into having sex by claiming he was muslim. Cuz that would make this guy to jail in this case A-OK

Jackmannii

07-21-2010, 10:53 PM

Finn, you have some serious issues, and I'm not going to join you in your crazy.Yeah, he's too busy with his own crazy (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=571382&page=2). I never thought (pot) caused any impairment at all except perhaps for inexperienced users. I still don't think it cuases any impairment significant enough to worry about. Pass the bong to my surgeon. I don't care.Arguing with Dio never does any good. While frequently wrong, he's never in doubt, and will stubbornly hold to the most inane positions rather than concede error in even the minutest degree.Why not compare what is happening to this guy to what would happen to a Jew that conned a muslim girl into having sex by claiming he was muslim.I wondered briefly what would be the prison sentence for a Jewish guy who tried conning a Muslim woman in this fashion in a Muslim nation in the Middle East. The difficult with imaging such a scenario is 1) the virtual absence of Jews in any of these countries due to their having been driven from their homes after 1948, and 2) the likelihood that the "sentence" would be death by stoning for both man and woman.

Guinastasia

07-21-2010, 10:57 PM

Well, we COULD stick them in a room together. Then the rest of us could just discuss this like adults?

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 11:02 PM

I did answer it.
Where? Where is this information recorded that it's supposed to be so easy for me to find?

Diogenes the Cynic

07-21-2010, 11:05 PM

wondered briefly what would be the prison sentence for a Jewish guy who tried conning a Muslim woman in this fashion in a Muslim nation in the Middle East. The difficult with imaging such a scenario is 1) the virtual absence of Jews in any of these countries due to their having been driven from their homes after 1948, and 2) the likelihood that the "sentence" would be death by stoning for both man and woman.
This is an evasion of the question and the issue. "Yeah, but Muslims are eeeeevil, does not get Israel off the hook for its own Jim Crow practices.

Captain Amazing

07-21-2010, 11:11 PM

So is it fraud if someone lies about being married or says "I love you" if they don't.

Under that law, the first would probably be actionable, the second, probably not.

Captain Amazing

07-21-2010, 11:17 PM

This is an evasion of the question and the issue. "Yeah, but Muslims are eeeeevil, does not get Israel off the hook for its own Jim Crow practices.

This isn't Jim Crow, though. The law doesn't specify Palestinians, or even lying about being a Palestinian. It's about lying to get sex, period.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-21-2010, 11:24 PM

Oh dear.

There are two separate issues involved here that we would probably do well to keep separate. The first is whether what this guy did can or cannot constitute rape. The second is whether he was convicted of it because of racism or ethnocentrism. I'm not touching the latter. I will leave that to... others.

As to the first question, though, a lot of people seem to be saying that the idea that lying to accomplish sex could ever be rape is absurd, and I think it's a lot more complicated than that. As has been mentioned a couple of times, there are laws of similar construction in place in plenty of jurisdictions, including most American ones. I also think that there are quite a few posters who aren't considering fully the ramifications of their responses to this particular case.

That quote is not proof of racism, no. I don't see, however, how lying to get sex makes one a criminal. If that were the case, just about every man on the planet would be a criminal. So it's not "people" who lie to get sex that's the problem, it's the type of people who are lying that determines the criminality, which is discriminatory.

Obviously she liked what she saw, and obviously she liked what he said, so much so that she opened her legs to him within minutes of meeting, which exposes her as no paragon of virtue in the first place. I agree that it is her right to choose who she sleeps with, and she chose.

This is a good example. First, the nonsense about how she opened her legs is disgusting, and casts the rest of the argument in a terrible light. She can have sex with whoever she wants, and 'virtue' has no place in the discussion. It's very tiresome that a discussion of a sexual assault has to follow this blueprint. Can we cut that out?

Second, are you comfortable with the position that there is no lie a person can tell to another person which can result in a consent problem? Is that the approach you take with respect to, for instance, financial fraud? If I tell you I'm an authorized dealer of Rolexes, or whatever, and you consent to give me money for my Rolex, haven't you "chosen" your course of action in precisely the same way this woman "chose" to have sex with this cat?

I certainly understand that not all lies are created equal. I'm not trying to argue with anybody that there should be a hard line drawn, and everybody who says something that isn't true during a courtship should be thrown in jail. But rape is sex without consent. Consent is something that lives in each person's mind individually. If telling her that he's Jewish is a reasonable deciding factor for her in continuing the interactions then it is necessarily true that he accomplished her consent by fraud (and whether or not you think it makes for a good society, I think we all agree that reasonable people sometimes decide who to have sex with based on less significant things than culture or religion). And accomplishing consent by fraud is a crime, same as it's a crime to accomplish possession of somebody's property by lying to them. There are going to be gray areas, obviously, and it's a complicated and difficult thing to sort out. I'm just not sure if people are really comfortable with the idea that this never rises to the level of rape.

Those of you who think this is stupid, how do you feel about a guy who says he's a famous person? A guy who pretends to be a woman's boyfriend? A guy who lies about his connections in a particular industry and promises some kind of reward for sex that he can't make good on? Are any of those sufficient to invalidate consent?

And again, I know this is a heated discussion, and I'm not taking any position on whether the actual prosecution was appropriate or not. I'm only responding to the argument about the letter of the law as written.

Guinastasia

07-21-2010, 11:28 PM

Those of you who think this is stupid, how do you feel about a guy who says he's a famous person? A guy who pretends to be a woman's boyfriend? A guy who lies about his connections in a particular industry and promises some kind of reward for sex that he can't make good on? Are any of those sufficient to invalidate consent?

They make him a sleaze -- they do not make him a rapist.

Turn the tables -- how would you feel about a woman who did the same?

Jimmy Chitwood

07-21-2010, 11:44 PM

Well, I wasn't talking about how I feel. But the same rule applies either way, obviously.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 12:07 AM

Where? Where is this information recorded that it's supposed to be so easy for me to find?

I know that talking to an "Expert" about basic logic is wasted when he's getting his hate on, but the point is that you find the information first and then make the accusation, not make the accusation and say you believe it because you're so bigoted against the group in question and it's just unfortunate that you don't have any actual proof to back up your hate.

They make him a sleaze -- they do not make him a rapist.

Seriously, what part of "under the law in question, dishonesty used to convince someone to have sex is rape by deception" is confusing you?
You do know that other nations actually have their own laws, right?

Your arguments made more sense when you used to try to compare Israel's action with arab actions.

Yah... you're making that up.

When do I admit that I am an anti-Israeli bigot (BTW, when you say anti-Israeli bigot, do you mean anti-semite?)?

It's interesting just how easily you, repeatedly, manage to 'forgot' inconvenient facts. Like how you repeated something like a half dozen times how the UN created Israel and one of the ways you knew this to be true was that the Arab armies attacked on the very day that the Partition was supposed to go into effect. But then it was pointed out that, no, those events were months apart. So you repeated your fiction, several times in fact. Each time changing it just a bit. You knew you were right, because the Arabs attacked the day before the Partition went into effect? No? Months before? Okay then, you knew you were right because they attacked the day after the Partition was supposed to into effect? No? Months before. Okay, then you knew you were right because...

No, of course, after you admitted to instintually filtering any and all information through your standard anti-Israel mindset (also known as "bigotry") and that you had to fight to actually analyze the facts and not just fit them into reasons why you hated Israel (for which you blamed me, naturally), you've totally forgotten it. What luck!

Here, let me remind you.

I don't think I used to be a knee-jerk Israel criticiser but Finn is quickly turning me into one. I don't sepdn time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on in the middle east, instead I find myself trying to fifure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against Israel and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don't think this was the case before I encountered Finn.

Naturally, you're bigoted against Israel, and it's all my fault. That's right up there with "Sure I don't have a natural revulsion to black people, but it's their fault, a bunch of black kids once robbed me!"

Yes!!! Raging anti-Israel bigotry is EVERYWHERE, the only possible reason anyone could possibly criticize Israel is because they are bigots.

Yah, you're making that up too. Dio decides that Isreal simply must be horrible because no court in Israel would prosecute and no part of the justice system would bring suit if it was a Jewish man who tricked an Arab woman into having sex, and he knows this because, well, he just knows that the Israelis are bad, bad people. And his hate is enough for him.

And you, habitually taking all new informationand finding ways to work it into your anti-Israel worldview, why, your're shocked, shocked you say at why someone might call you a bigot. Why, if you and Dio are bigots, then everybody who criticizes Israel must be! Of course, I've criticized Israel, Jack's criticized Israel, Malthus has criticized Israel, Captain Amazing has criticized Israel, DSeid has... and none of them are bigots.
Funny, aint it?

Quint

07-22-2010, 12:17 AM

This case certainly shocks me. This guy says he met a woman, introduced himself as "Dudu", and later they had sex. She discovers that despite his being called Dudu he is not Jewish, so goes to the cops. The guy then spends two years behind bars based on her claim that his family and friends calling him Dudu led her to think he was Jewish? How is anyone defending this shit?

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 12:28 AM

This case certainly shocks me. This guy says he met a woman, introduced himself as "Dudu", and later they had sex.

... you do realize that's his claim, not necessarily the gospel truth? And that the woman involved had a different claim? She claimed that he introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor (he's Muslim, and married), and that he was seeking a serious relationship. The court believed her, and found that would qualify as deception used to get sex, which is a crime.

It's fine to object to the law, but at least keep the facts straight.

Quint

07-22-2010, 12:38 AM

... you do realize that's his claim, not necessarily the gospel truth? And that the woman involved had a different claim? She claimed that he introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor (he's Muslim, and married), and that he was seeking a serious relationship. The court believed her, and found that would qualify as deception used to get sex, which is a crime.

It's fine to object to the law, but at least keep the facts straight.

That's the problem though, this is a classic he said she said situation. What basis did the court have to believe her version of events? Whatever that might have been I would hope that it was hella compelling to cost a man two years behind bars.

Freudian Slit

07-22-2010, 12:45 AM

... you do realize that's his claim, not necessarily the gospel truth? And that the woman involved had a different claim? She claimed that he introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor (he's Muslim, and married), and that he was seeking a serious relationship. The court believed her, and found that would qualify as deception used to get sex, which is a crime.

It's fine to object to the law, but at least keep the facts straight.

She honestly believed that a guy she had sex with right after meeting was seeking a serious longterm relationship? I'm not saying people who have immediate sex are bad people, but that's not exactly a sure fire recipe for a long lasting relationship.

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2010, 12:50 AM

"Funny, he didn't shtupp Jewish...."

Guinastasia

07-22-2010, 12:51 AM

Seriously, what part of "under the law in question, dishonesty used to convince someone to have sex is rape by deception" is confusing you?
You do know that other nations actually have their own laws, right?

Must you be so anal?

Read the example Jimmy Chitwood gave again. It wasn't about this particular case. He asked, "what if THIS happened?" Just because the law in Israel considers getting someone to have sex with you by lying is rape doesn't mean it actually is.

At one point, there was no law against spousal rape. Did that mean that mean there was no such thing?

This is Israeli law is completely unjust and makes a mockery of true rape victims. Is the man a sleaze ball? Yes. Is he a rapist? No, not according to the actual definition of rape. (YES, I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED LAW.)

:rolleyes:

Captain Amazing

07-22-2010, 12:59 AM

This is Israeli law is completely unjust and makes a mockery of true rape victims. Is the man a sleaze ball? Yes. Is he a rapist? No, not according to the actual definition of rape. (YES, I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED LAW.)

:rolleyes:

The actual definition of rape is in the goddamned law, so what are you talking about if you're not talking about the goddamned law?

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 01:24 AM

That's the problem though, this is a classic he said she said situation.

Sometimes cases are decided based on one person's word against another's. Especially if it's a case of someone having allegedly said something in order to defraud someone into a particular set of actions.

This is Israeli law is completely unjust and makes a mockery of true rape victims.

If it'll save you from getting all in a tizzy, think of it as "the crime that is known as not obtaining accurate consent by willfully misrepresenting facts such that your potential sexual partner is not allowed to make an honest appraisal and by which you defraud them into agreeing to sex."

Is he a rapist? No, not according to the actual definition of rape. (YES, I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED LAW.)

You don't know what the you're talking about except you're prepared to be difficult. The 'actual definition of rape' is:

2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape (http://east.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape)

In the situation we're talking about, unlawful sexual activity includes, by statute, lying in order to trick someone into having sex with you. What you really mean to say is that "rape by fraud isn't the same thing as beating the shit out of someone and forcing them to have sex!" And you'd be right. But it's also a non sequitur.

Bosstone

07-22-2010, 01:31 AM

Whether or not the law is a just one, it's pretty clear it's not a racist one.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-22-2010, 01:40 AM

It's the application that that's racist.

Alessan

07-22-2010, 03:31 AM

Which is why there's a judicial process.

Jackmannii

07-22-2010, 07:15 AM

This is an evasion of the question and the issue. "Yeah, but Muslims are eeeeevil, does not get Israel off the hook for its own Jim Crow practices.Except that of course I did not say that, and was responding to Damuri's "Why not compare what is happening to this guy to what would happen to a Jew that conned a muslim girl into having sex by claiming he was muslim".

Do you even bother to read the posts you pretend to refute, or do you just do a quick scan for excuses to spout your biases?

DSeid

07-22-2010, 07:30 AM

Dio, one, a Palestinian paper would have covered it. Two, given the attention this case has gotten, the woman would be going to the media now, don't you think? So, yeah, you are full of shit. I might as well be bringing up what I would imagine would happen if a Jew in an Arab country did this to a Muslim woman (other than that the Muslim woman wouldn't bring it up because of what would happen to her); our imaginings and speculations reveal only our extant biases and nothing more. And yours are particularly ugly and presumptuous.

The law should be blind to the alleged law-breaker or victims religion, race, ethnicity, etc. The courts have convicted Jewish Israelis of this crime; to not convict solely because the lie involved a Palestinian lieing religious identity instead of job status (as it had in the past) when he is clearly guilty of the crime as the law is written, would be ugly.

Kobal2

07-22-2010, 07:54 AM

or a doctor having sex with a woman when she thinks he's giving her a gynecological exam.)

"Trust me, ma'am, speculum is just a fancy word for penis."

DSeid

07-22-2010, 08:38 AM

Guin "rape" means a sex with a lack of meaningful consent. Nothing more and nothing less. That includes sex by force or threat of force, sex with someone who is passed out and unable to consent or object and who may not even remember it occurred, sex with someone who is too young to meaningfully give consent, and in this case, sex in which consent was fraudulently obtained.

They are not all equal but one does not make a mockery of the other.

An intelligent conversation could be had over whether this law is good, well-intended but poorly written, or completely dumb even in concept. BUT neither the law nor its application in this case is racist, or Jim Crow, or apartheid, and portraying it as such reveals more about those who claim it than it does about Israel.

amanset

07-22-2010, 08:44 AM

So the OP starts by lying about the basic facts of the issue, this is good.

Good to see nothing changes with our man FinnAgain.

"YOU LIE!"

villa

07-22-2010, 08:51 AM

The actual definition of rape is in the goddamned law, so what are you talking about if you're not talking about the goddamned law?

Come on - there are plenty of situations which people would agree on as rape, but which are not criminally defined as rape. Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them (not punishable as rape under Nebraska law at the time) or the Pennsylvania 63 year old who, along with his wife, allowed a teen to stay with them so she could get out of juvie, and then told her if she did not have sex with him he would have her sent back.

I would hope we would agree that both those men are rapists, despite inadequately written laws. Moreover, in many jurisdictions now there is no crime of rape, just different gradations of sexual assault. Does that mean in those jurisdictions there are no rapists, only sexual assailants?

villa

07-22-2010, 08:55 AM

An intelligent conversation could be had over whether this law is good, well-intended but poorly written, or completely dumb even in concept. BUT neither the law nor its application in this case is racist, or Jim Crow, or apartheid, and portraying it as such reveals more about those who claim it than it does about Israel.

We simply don't know that. This law is not racist in and of itself, but nothing in this thread has shown anything either way about its application. Sayign that Jewish men are charged under this law does not show application is not racist. To show that, you would need a situation where a Jewish man lied to a Muslim woman about his religion, and he was similarly charged.

That no one has shown that doesn't mean the law is applied in a racist manner, but absent that it isn't possible to say that it is not so applied.

amanset

07-22-2010, 09:01 AM

I would hope we would agree that both those men are rapists,

Nope. They used blackmailed people into having sex, but the sex was consensual. IMHO sex has to be non-consensual for it to be rape.

Then again, for what its worth, I disagree with classifying sex with a minor automatically as "statutory rape" as I believe it devalues what rape actually is. Much like your two examples do.

villa

07-22-2010, 09:08 AM

Nope. They used blackmailed people into having sex, but the sex was consensual. IMHO sex has to be non-consensual for it to be rape.

From something I wrote on this:

From the day of her fourteenth birthday (after which time he could no longer be charged with statutory rape in Pennsylvania), Mlinarich subjected the girl to a string of sexual assaults. When he wife was out, he insisted that the victim undress. When she refused, he "threatened to send her back to the detention home if she did not comply." Commonwealth v. Mlinarich, 542 A.2d 1335, 1337 (Pa. 1988). Mlinarich twice failed to rape the victim, failing to achieve penetration, while she "experienced pain and 'scream[ed], holler[ed]' and cried." Id. Eventually he succeeded in penetrating her, as well as forcing her to engage in oral intercourse, each time under the same threat of being sent back to the detention center.

I'm glad that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine.

Diogenes the Cynic

07-22-2010, 09:13 AM

Dio, one, a Palestinian paper would have covered it.
How would they have ever even known about it?

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 09:15 AM

Good to see nothing changes with our man FinnAgain.

Good to see that idiots like you will allow any dishonesty as long as it supports your anti-Israel narrative, and then you'll get upset when called on it. Due to how very honest and honorable you are.
Of course, the OP was lying, nobody was "jailed for being Palestinian", and you know that. The OP knew that, too. But you'll defend someone lying in order to say something negative about Israel because that's just the kind of person you are. (Honorable, and honest, too!)

amanset

07-22-2010, 09:21 AM

From something I wrote on this:

Where? In this thread?

amanset

07-22-2010, 09:24 AM

Good to see that idiots like you will allow any dishonesty as long as it supports your anti-Israel narrative, and then you'll get upset when called on it. Due to how very honest and honorable you are.
Of course, the OP was lying, nobody was "jailed for being Palestinian", and you know that. The OP knew that, too. But you'll defend someone lying in order to say something negative about Israel because that's just the kind of person you are. (Honorable, and honest, too!)

Mate, I haven't even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.

Just pointing out that for the umpteenth time you joined the discussion throwing around accusations of lying. At least get a fucking thesaurus and add some synonyms to the mix. And possibly a dictionary so you can look up "hyperbole".

villa

07-22-2010, 09:24 AM

Where? In this thread?

No - a journal article on rape law. I just cut and pasted rather than retyping.

amanset

07-22-2010, 09:30 AM

No - a journal article on rape law. I just cut and pasted rather than retyping.

So when you wrote "I'm glad that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine." you actually realise that what you really meant was "I don't know if that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine."

You see, because all I had to go on is "Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them". *That* I do not see as rape. Add in things like trying to forcibly get his penis inside of them, then it is a different matter.

Don't get arsey if you don't provide all the evidence.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 09:36 AM

Mate, I haven't even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.

There's that honorable nature, and honesty, too!
You objected to me, correctly, noting that the OP was lying when they claimed that a "Palestinian was jailed for being Palestinian." Rather than object to such blatant dishonesty, which you wouldn't do because you're just one of our anti-Israel brigade, you spazzed out and tried to take me to task for, go figure, being right about the OP lying.

Because you're a partisan shill and you believe that we're not supposed to call out anti-Israel lying (due to how honorable and honest you are).

Bonus points for your new line of dishonesty, and I do hope it become standard in the We Hate Israel brigade on the Dope. First of all, of course, you're dishonestly claiming that the fact of the OP lying is a mere "accusation", like maybe the guy really was jailed for being a Palestinian. :rolleyes: And now if you lie about something, it's just "hyperbole". Funny, of course, that all your "hyperbole" ends up being anti-Israel. What're the odds?

Surely you're not just a partisan looking to support your anti-Israel bias. Nope. We all know that you'd enthusiastically support someone who said "Israel's security measures are justified because each and every single Palestinian man, woman and child is a terrorist bomber." Because, I mean, that's just hyperbole. And if you get caught in an anti-Israel lie then, why, just claim it's "hyperbole". It can't fail.
Of course (being that you're so honest and honorable) I'm sure you've wondered why it is that your anti-Israel brigade has to resort to wild hyperbole quite so often to make your claims, but (again, due to how honest and honorable you are) you're much more concerned with the fact that someone noticed that the OP was lying than that the OP was lying.

villa

07-22-2010, 09:37 AM

So when you wrote "I'm glad that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine." you actually realise that what you really meant was "I don't know if that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine."

You see, because all I had to go on is "Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them". *That* I do not see as rape. Add in things like trying to forcibly get his penis inside of them, then it is a different matter.

Don't get arsey if you don't provide all the evidence.

That was the Pennsylvania case by the way - and on rereading it was Montana not Nebraska. My bad.

The thing is, though, under Pennsylvania law, that he had to force into her did not make it rape. That she didn't tell him to stop because she was terrified of being sent back to juvie meant it could not result in a rape conviction. If she was terrified because he held a gun to her head, then the conviction would have been upheld. That's the traditional legal view of rape by the way - that both force and absence of consent are required.

My apologies for getting arsey with you.

Pedro

07-22-2010, 09:39 AM

Mate, I haven't even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.

Just pointing out that for the umpteenth time you joined the discussion throwing around accusations of lying. At least get a fucking thesaurus and add some synonyms to the mix. And possibly a dictionary so you can look up "hyperbole".

To be fair he throws in a few "dishonests" once in a while for good measure.

This is how I picture a typical FinnAgain monologue:
- Damn, I'm so liar!
- Sorry, I mean hungry.
- But this hamburger is absolutely bigot!
- What the hell?! I meant delicious, of dishonesty.
- Of course! Of course. Fuck, why do I keep making these liars?

Ad infinitum.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 09:48 AM

This is how I picture a typical FinnAgain monologue:

Ah, a man of integrity.
When people lie and are called and it, and other evince bigotry, don't call them on lying or bigotry, get upset with the guy who notices and points it out.
Obviously, the fact that many people on this board are bigoted against Israel and/or lie to support that narrative reflects very poorly on me.
You're so smart.

amanset

07-22-2010, 09:56 AM

There's that honorable nature, and honesty, too!
You objected to me, correctly, noting that the OP was lying when they claimed that a "Palestinian was jailed for being Palestinian." Rather than object to such blatant dishonesty, which you wouldn't do because you're just one of our anti-Israel brigade, you spazzed out and tried to take me to task for, go figure, being right about the OP lying.

Because you're a partisan shill and you believe that we're not supposed to call out anti-Israel lying (due to how honorable and honest you are).

Bonus points for your new line of dishonesty, and I do hope it become standard in the We Hate Israel brigade on the Dope. First of all, of course, you're dishonestly claiming that the fact of the OP lying is a mere "accusation", like maybe the guy really was jailed for being a Palestinian. :rolleyes: And now if you lie about something, it's just "hyperbole". Funny, of course, that all your "hyperbole" ends up being anti-Israel. What're the odds?

Surely you're not just a partisan looking to support your anti-Israel bias. Nope. We all know that you'd enthusiastically support someone who said "Israel's security measures are justified because each and every single Palestinian man, woman and child is a terrorist bomber." Because, I mean, that's just hyperbole. And if you get caught in an anti-Israel lie then, why, just claim it's "hyperbole". It can't fail.
Of course (being that you're so honest and honorable) I'm sure you've wondered why it is that your anti-Israel brigade has to resort to wild hyperbole quite so often to make your claims, but (again, due to how honest and honorable you are) you're much more concerned with the fact that someone noticed that the OP was lying than that the OP was lying.

Man you've posted more there about me being anti-Israel and a shill than I have in the whole thread. Priorities, mate!

I see the title as hyperbole (remember to get a dictionary). The actual OP doesn't mention being jailed "for being Palestinian" at all. There are no lies in the OP at all. There is simply a hyperbolic thread title.

Hell, the title doesn't even mention Israel either.

amanset

07-22-2010, 09:57 AM

My apologies for getting arsey with you.

Accepted.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 10:00 AM

Nobody said it wasn't. It still doesn't make it rape in this case.

There are two issues raised by this case:

1. Is the law that treats fraudulently obtained sex as "rape" a bad law? I take it you think that it is. I tend to agree, it's a bad law; too many unintended consequences. I note that this is not a particularly Israeli issue, because such laws exist in other countries, too (I posted an academic article on such laws in the US).

2. Is this case on its face evidence of racism on the part of the court or of Israeli society at large? I am strongly of the opinion that, absent some sort of actual evidence that the law would not be applied if the situations were reveresed, it is clearly not. That is what the quote you cited was arguing. Assuming the law as written, it is not 'racist' on the part of the courts to enforce it where the law where the "deception" at issue involves the person's ethnic identity - because, if a woman has a right to choose not to sleep with someone based on an accurate portrayal of their profession (the surgeon case), they equally have the same right not to sleep with someone based on an accurate portrayal of their identity.

To claim that in the ideal world no woman would be "racist" enough to care about such matters as the ethnicity of whom they have sex with is no answer, because the test is partly subjective and depends on what the woman herself cares about - an the fact is that it is reasonable to expect that many women do care about such matters (and saying so is not racist, or evidence of a racist society, but simply acknowledging reality).

Does that make sense?

amanset

07-22-2010, 10:02 AM

Ah, a man of integrity.
When people lie and are called and it, and other evince bigotry, don't call them on lying or bigotry, get upset with the guy who notices and points it out.
Obviously, the fact that many people on this board are bigoted against Israel and/or lie to support that narrative reflects very poorly on me.
You're so smart.

Just for the record, I am bigoted against Israel in the same way as I am bigoted against, oooh, the British Police or al-Qaeda. When they do shit things I say they've done shit things.

It isn't my fault that Israel has been doing a lot of shit things recently.

The last time we discussed this I was very, very clear with my views regarding the Middle East. I was clear that I think both sides are wrong and they have both done some very, very shitty things. I don't support either.

Yet in your mind, because I don't accept without question everything Israel does and have been known to criticise them I must somehow be anti-Israel, a bigot, a shill and no doubt an anti-Semite.

That says much more about you than it does about me.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 10:12 AM

Yet in your mind, because I don't accept without question everything Israel does and have been known to criticise them I must somehow be anti-Israel, a bigot, a shill and no doubt an anti-Semite.

That says much more about you than it does about me.

Actually what it says is that, predictably, you've decided to start lying, no doubt as part of a bit of your standard trolling so that now you can clutch at your wounded breast and moan about how very unfair it is that I've pointed out that you're lying. It's a neat trick, and an admitted pedophile like you would probably get upset about someone deliberately crafting dishonest accusations in order to get upset that they're called a liar. Why, I bet that now you'll say I'm lying and that you aren't really a pedophile. Predictable.

Rather obviously, you're just making shit up. Nobody on this board accepts everything Israel does without question. Most likely, nobody in the world does either. But that's one of your pack of jackals' standard lies when it comes to this topic, anybody who doesn't demonize Israel properly must, of course, support everything they do always.
Just like your "Oh please oh please oh please call me an anti-Semite!" idiocy.

Just like I've criticized Israel, Malthus has criticized Israel, DSeid has criticized Israel, Jack has criticized Israel, Captain Amazing has criticized Israel.... and, lo and behold, none of them are bigots, or dishonest, or shilling for an agenda. Go figure.

The actual OP doesn't mention being jailed "for being Palestinian" at all. There are no lies in the OP at all. There is simply a hyperbolic thread title.
Hell, the title doesn't even mention Israel either.

Yeah, that's the kind of habitual dishonesty that I'm talking about, thanks for the object lesson. "Why, the OP wasn't even about Israel and sure the very first thing that the OP says and that everybody sees is the lie that a Palestinian man was jailed for simply being a Palestinian, but it was in the title not in the OP, and it's a lie that supports my hatred of Israel, so it's cool!"

me being anti-Israel and a shill

Why don't you go start another ATMB thread where you whine about how I'm allow to insult you in the Pit?
Of course, you are an anti-Israel shill and you are objecting to someone being called for for lying because that lie supports your anti-Israel bias.

I see the title as hyperbole

Yes, as already noted, you are a partisan shill without a shred of personal honor or honesty when it comes to your hatred of Israel. Of course a blatant lie is mere "hyperbole", a word whose definition you rather obviously don't know despite your babble about dictionaries. And, of course, as you're just a partisan whore, you'd be up in arms if someone claimed that Israel is totally justified since all Palestinians are terrorists. You're just a shill who'll support one set of lies as "hyperbole" and another as something you just won't stand for (because it doesn't support the narrative you're shilling for, natch).

Malthus

07-22-2010, 10:15 AM

Yeah the naturalization law is highly criticized too. I'm not saying all Israelis are bigots I'm saying the society has institutionalized racism against Palestinians. You don't think that there were South Africans that criticized apartheid?

There may well be cases of unjust laws with institutionalized racist intent or effect in Israel - but this particular case is not one of them.

and in all likelihood of people like you were writing and enforcing Israel's laws, I would have no reason to compare it to South Africa.

That's very complementary. :)

But it is criminal in Israel and the law is being applied to this particular case.

And in this particular case, there is no evidence of racism.

And if it enforced in a racist manner then it would be racist.

True, but this case alone is not sufficient evidence that it is enforced in a racist manner.

Perhaps this guy is full of shit but if he is then why is there so much criticism of this case in Israel?

For the same reason there is here - because it appears, to the uninformed who have not actually thought about it, to be discriminatory.

Just look at this very thread title: "Palestinan jailed fir being Palestinian". Naturally, this invokes anger (also in the title: "RO" = "recreational Outrage").

Yeah but he has some idea of the purpose and prosecution of the laws in Israel.

But what he's saying isn't "racist", it is simply an acknowledgement of reality: the same would be true here in Canada - many Jewish women would be upset if they found out that their lovers were lying about being Jewish just to screw them.

Do you think that the Jewish guy calling himself Omar in a Palestinian bar would have been the first guy that they prosecuted for this sort of thing?

I have no idea. To assume facts not in evidence as proof of racism just demonstrates that the actual facts in evidence are not proof of racism.

I agree that the high court does its best to be as fair as possible but they can only be as just as the laws they interpret. If the laws allow for institutionalized prejudice then the high court must do so as well. I have nothing but respect for Jewish legal scholarship (not all Jewish legal scholars but the scholarship, it comes from millenia of tradition of thinking about the law and our legal tradition has incorporated much of that).

But, as I've pointed out, there is nothing about this law that facilitates "institutionalized prejudice".

Certainly, if the law was applied in an unjust manner, that would be evidence of prejudice in the system. But that has nothing to do with the law. If for example only Blacks are ever charged with murder and never Whites, the system is racist - but that doesn't mean the law against murder is racist.

We only have a single case of someone being charged with this sort of rape for identity - that simply is not evidence of institutionalized racism.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 10:39 AM

It's not racist. It IS fucking stupid, and Israeli lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves, as should the judge.

amanset

07-22-2010, 10:44 AM

Actually what it says is that, predictably, you've decided to start lying, no doubt as part of a bit of your standard trolling so that now you can clutch at your wounded breast and moan about how very unfair it is that I've pointed out that you're lying. It's a neat trick, and an admitted pedophile like you would probably get upset about someone deliberately crafting dishonest accusations in order to get upset that they're called a liar. Why, I bet that now you'll say I'm lying and that you aren't really a pedophile. Predictable.

Wow. Now I'm lying? I'm using your own words. From this thread.

"you're just one of our anti-Israel brigade"
"Because you're a partisan shill"
"When people lie and are called and it, and other evince bigotry,"

I mean come on.

Rather obviously, you're just making shit up. Nobody on this board accepts everything Israel does without question. Most likely, nobody in the world does either. But that's one of your pack of jackals' standard lies when it comes to this topic, anybody who doesn't demonize Israel properly must, of course, support everything they do always.
Just like your "Oh please oh please oh please call me an anti-Semite!" idiocy.

You sir have been shown to do so. You are routinely asked to give examples of Israeli actions you disagreed with and routinely you do not give any.

Yeah, that's the kind of habitual dishonesty that I'm talking about, thanks for the object lesson. "Why, the OP wasn't even about Israel and sure the very first thing that the OP says and that everybody sees is the lie that a Palestinian man was jailed for simply being a Palestinian, but it was in the title not in the OP, and it's a lie that supports my hatred of Israel, so it's cool!"

1. I never said the OP wasn't about Israel. To use your favourite phrase, stop lying.
2. People are expected to read the post and preferably the link too. Neither of which claims he was jailed for being Palestinian.
3. If someone doesn't read the thread they have no idea that Israel is involved. If they do, they'll see what happened. The topic title is no different to a tabloid headline.

Why don't you go start another ATMB thread where you whine about how I'm allow to insult you in the Pit?
Of course, you are an anti-Israel shill and you are objecting to someone being called for for lying because that lie supports your anti-Israel bias.

See, here AGAIN are you calling me a shill and anti-Israel, just like you did earlier but you then called me a liar for saying you had.

Seriously. Is English your first language? Can you read? Do you have any sort of learning development problems? Because something is stopping the words on the screen getting into your head.

Yes, as already noted, you are a partisan shill without a shred of personal honor or honesty when it comes to your hatred of Israel. Of course a blatant lie is mere "hyperbole", a word whose definition you rather obviously don't know despite your babble about dictionaries. And, of course, as you're just a partisan whore, you'd be up in arms if someone claimed that Israel is totally justified since all Palestinians are terrorists. You're just a shill who'll support one set of lies as "hyperbole" and another as something you just won't stand for (because it doesn't support the narrative you're shilling for, natch).

Again with the "partisan shill" and "hatred of Israel". For a "lie" it is certainly a "lie" that you like to keep performing.

So let me see. I laid out quite clearly for you what my views on the Middle East are. I have also given you the same views in other threads. These are views I have held for some time.

But what you are saying - because you know me so well - is that these are in fact lies?

Riiiiight.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 11:03 AM

Wow. Now I'm lying?

No, you've been lying. You're just still doing it. Rather obviously, and blatantly I might add.

You sir have been shown to do so. You are routinely asked to give examples of Israeli actions you disagreed with and routinely you do not give any.

Nope, you're lying yet again. Go figure. And of course I haven't "been shown to do so". The pack of rabid curs that you run with simply like that lie a lot, so you repeat it. As any Big Lie works, you seem to hope that if you use it enough, you'll fool some people. Of course it's not true and you're simply a back of vile, pustular mongrels, but that goes with the territory.

The truth is that despite me going on record criticizing Israel, the assholes on the board who make up the anti-Israel brigade will lie about it, even in threads where I've just criticized something Israel does. Sometimes only a few posts right after. You guys just like lying, I suppose.

1. I never said the OP wasn't about Israel.

There's that honorable and honest nature you have! While lying and saying that the OP didn't claim that the issue was "Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian" (since, ya know, they said it in the title and not the body of the post, and anti-Israel lies are only "hyperbole" and yadda yadda), you also claimed that it was somehow important that the OP didn't mention the word Israel in the body text, either.

Surely, not so you can shill. Nopers. Just coincidence.

See, here AGAIN are you calling me a shill and anti-Israel, just like you did earlier but you then called me a liar for saying you had.

Yeah, you keep lying while moaning about how you're being called out for continually lying. You're kinda retarded, eh?
Your lie was not that you're a shill who is anti-Israel. Of course you are and of course I said you are. Your lie was that rather than your constant dishonesty and shilling for your anti Israel narrative (like justifying lies as "hyperbole" as long as they're anti-Israel lies), that it was really because you don't accept everything that Israel does. Except, I listed several people who also don't and who I not only haven't called any names, but respect because unlike you they're not dishonest and not shills.
Because, ya know, you were lying.

So let me see. I laid out quite clearly for you what my views on the Middle East are.

Yes, you are a liar. Unsurprisingly, I'm not taking you at your word. Go figure, eh?
Your actual views on the Middle East are shown by your behavior, not your oh-so-honest (and honorable too!) protestations of your neutrality. Your record is clear including the issue that led to you whining in ATMB about how you shouldn't be insulted in the Pit, a thread, by the way, in which you admitted to dishonestly trying to find excuses to 'get me in trouble'. Because, ya know, you're a liar.

You're fine with lies about Israel as long as you can handwave them away as hyperbole. Strangely enough, you're not fine with the truth if it doesn't paint Israel in a negative light.
Just one of those coincidences, eh? Eh?

Pedro

07-22-2010, 11:08 AM

Bricker

07-22-2010, 11:19 AM

The thing is, though, under Pennsylvania law, that he had to force into her did not make it rape. That she didn't tell him to stop because she was terrified of being sent back to juvie meant it could not result in a rape conviction. If she was terrified because he held a gun to her head, then the conviction would have been upheld. That's the traditional legal view of rape by the way - that both force and absence of consent are required.

The problem with your view is that it leads to arguments, as we're seeing here, on what sorts of conduct constitute 'rape.'

Many years ago, I posted in response to a GQ thread titled Can I legally refuse to feed Rachel Leigh Cook unless she sleeps with me? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=184532) that may be of interest to the present discussion.

Either we agree that "rape" refers to a specific crime with specific elements, with the further understanding that "rape under New Jersey law," "rape under Virginia law," and "rape under Israeli law," may not be identical crimes, or we accept this generic idea that rape means whatever the speaker wishes it to mean, which leads us to absurdities like "all married sex is rape," a paraphrase of Andrea Dworkin's articulated position in "Right Wing Women."

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 11:26 AM

Just a disinterested opinion but I can set my watch by how long it takes you to cry "liar" in any thread critical of anything Israeli. That doesn't lead me to believe you are entirely rational on the subject. I'm sure you'll disagree.

Of course, since you don't look at whether or not people actually are lying and only on whether or not I say that someone is, you obviously don't care if I'm right or not but are only objecting to the claim itself, and pretending that in the absence of any verification that the mere claim itself, even if totally correct, is evidence of "not being entirely rational." The fact is that there is a small (just over half a dozen) number of posters who reliably post anti-Israel positions, and reliably use dishonesty to do it.

The reason I point out so often that they're lying is that they lie that often.

Also, since were on this page, I find your habit of characterizing every one of your opponents as drooling morons off-putting.

Also not true. But, again, the fact that a small coterie who make up the dedicated anti-Israel brigade tend to use dishonesty, ignorance and malice as their weapons of choice doesn't mean it's somehow wrong for me to point it out.

amanset

07-22-2010, 11:35 AM

No, you've been lying. You're just still doing it. Rather obviously, and blatantly I might add.

Seriously, please tell me what I am lying about. As it is "blatant" it should be trivial for you to point it out to me.

Nope, you're lying yet again. Go figure. And of course I haven't "been shown to do so". The pack of rabid curs that you run with simply like that lie a lot, so you repeat it. As any Big Lie works, you seem to hope that if you use it enough, you'll fool some people. Of course it's not true and you're simply a back of vile, pustular mongrels, but that goes with the territory.

The truth is that despite me going on record criticizing Israel, the assholes on the board who make up the anti-Israel brigade will lie about it, even in threads where I've just criticized something Israel does. Sometimes only a few posts right after. You guys just like lying, I suppose.

I guess been asked to do so and then you not doing so is me lying. Or something. Definitely my fault though.

As I am not a stalker, I am yet to see you critcising Israel. Maybe I missed it. Fancy pointing out an example to me?

There's that honorable and honest nature you have! While lying and saying that the OP didn't claim that the issue was "Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian" (since, ya know, they said it in the title and not the body of the post, and anti-Israel lies are only "hyperbole" and yadda yadda), you also claimed that it was somehow important that the OP didn't mention the word Israel in the body text, either.

It wasn't an anti-Israel lie.

There is nothing in the OP or linked article that says that he was jailed for being Palestinian.

The hyperbolic thread title made no reference to Israel.

Yeah, you keep lying while moaning about how you're being called out for continually lying. You're kinda retarded, eh?

Seriously. Tell me what I am lying about.

Your lie was not that you're a shill who is anti-Israel. Of course you are and of course I said you are. Your lie was that rather than your constant dishonesty and shilling for your anti Israel narrative (like justifying lies as "hyperbole" as long as they're anti-Israel lies), that it was really because you don't accept everything that Israel does. Except, I listed several people who also don't and who I not only haven't called any names, but respect because unlike you they're not dishonest and not shills.
Because, ya know, you were lying.

About what, exactly?

Seriously, this basically reads like "your lie is that I called you a liar".

Yes, you are a liar.

You know a nice clean example would be good. If there are many things I am lying about, why not number them?! Like this:

1. You said you didn't fart when everyone heard you fart.
2. You said that you never called my bum "fat and not unlike a bean bag" when I have you on tape saying that.

Come on! It'll be fun!

Unsurprisingly, I'm not taking you at your word. Go figure, eh?
Your actual views on the Middle East are shown by your behavior, not your oh-so-honest (and honorable too!) protestations of your neutrality. Your record is clear including the issue that led to you whining in ATMB about how you shouldn't be insulted in the Pit, a thread, by the way, in which you admitted to dishonestly trying to find excuses to 'get me in trouble'. Because, ya know, you're a liar.

You're fine with lies about Israel as long as you can handwave them away as hyperbole. Strangely enough, you're not fine with the truth if it doesn't paint Israel in a negative light.
Just one of those coincidences, eh? Eh?

I didn't do anything dishonest. I brought attention to the moderators actions that IU felt - and still feel - are not allowed by the rules. You regularly troll and harass people. I included a list of terms you had used to harass me in a single thread. Your accusations of lying without ever saying what I am lying about is quite simply trolling - hassling me in an attempt to get a negative reaction. That is also against Pit rules. My mistake in that ATMB thread was concentrating on the language rather than the harassment and trolling.

What "lies about Israel" have I shown to be fine with today? The one that made no mention of Israel? Any others? You used a plural so I'm guessing there are - well, unless you are using lies and/or hyperbole.

The thing you are struggling to deal with is criticism of Israel isn't anti-Israel, bigotry, or whatever terms you want to use. It is simply disagreeing with Israel and thinking their actions were wrong.

Here's a thought for you: maybe I'm not criticising Palestine much as they haven't actually been doing much of late? In 2009 566 rockets were fired from the Gaza Strip into Israel, in comparison to 2,048 in 2008. Out of these, 406 were fired during the Gaza War, which ended on 18 January, and 160 were fired during the rest of the year. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel,_2009).

Ignoring the ones fired when Israel was flattening large portions of Gaza (and lying about their use of certain weapons in arguably illegal manners), 160 were fired. In a year. Usually causing no casualties and often no damage. In 2010 the story has been very similar.

This was shit of them. I don't like it. I wish they wouldn't do it. But in my opinion it is different to blocking much needed aid into Palestine, causing deaths, and doing stuff like boarding aid ships and killing people on them. Especially when those aid ships carry people from the country I am sitting in. It is more relevant to me hence I am more likely to discuss it. This doesn't mean that those Palestinians firing rockets aren't shits. It just means that in the grand scheme of things, those glorified fireworks that struggle to damage anything are not as "bad" as the blocking of medical aid, food and necessary materials for rebuilding homes and making drinking water safe from entering Palestine after the Israeli army caused widespread destruction.

Do you see? When the Palestinians do something really shit I'll discuss it. And I'll call them out on it. But frankly, they've been a lot quieter than the Israelis of late.

villa

07-22-2010, 11:51 AM

The problem with your view is that it leads to arguments, as we're seeing here, on what sorts of conduct constitute 'rape.'

Many years ago, I posted in response to a GQ thread titled Can I legally refuse to feed Rachel Leigh Cook unless she sleeps with me? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=184532) that may be of interest to the present discussion.

Either we agree that "rape" refers to a specific crime with specific elements, with the further understanding that "rape under New Jersey law," "rape under Virginia law," and "rape under Israeli law," may not be identical crimes, or we accept this generic idea that rape means whatever the speaker wishes it to mean, which leads us to absurdities like "all married sex is rape," a paraphrase of Andrea Dworkin's articulated position in "Right Wing Women."

Well, that's the reason I find a lot appealing about Schulhoffer's arguments regarding rape law. He maintains that the law should find "force" where the aggressor seeks to withhold something to which the victim otherwise has a right. So if a person has earned a promotion, or a high school diploma, for example, and they are told that absent the sex, they will be denied it, then that is rape. Rachel Leigh Cook, on the other hand, has no entitlement to your food. If you say to her that you will give her a sandwich in exchange for sex, then that wouldn't be rape, though it could be soliciting prostitution.

As to the elements, if we are to keep both force and lack of consent, I support the New Jersey approach, which holds that the act of penetration absent consent itself contains sufficient force to satisfy that element. I'm also in favor of a (soft) affirmative consent standard rather than the current negative consent position, especially for sexual encounters that take place outside of a relationship dynamic.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 11:54 AM

jsgoddess

07-22-2010, 11:58 AM

The idea that if lying to gain sex were rape all men would be rapists is a disgusting, untrue, sexist smear.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 12:01 PM

No, it really isn't. Well, except for monks.

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2010, 12:07 PM

"My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."

Giraffe

07-22-2010, 12:09 PM

It's not racist. It IS fucking stupid, and Israeli lawmakers should be ashamed of themselves, as should the judge.
Agreed, although I'd also go so far as to say that while the law may not be racist as written, it certainly provides a handy tool for racist/bigoted people to use to be racist/bigoted with. That bothers -- I don't like seeing the courts and jails used as weapons by assholes.

And FinnAgain: you are fucking nuts. Seriously. Watching you go off on someone for disagreeing with you over anything related to Israel with wildly disproportionate rhetoric and accusations for what seems like the millionth time makes it clear that you haven't the faintest clue about how to actually win an argument in a meaningful way (i.e. convincing anyone reading that you're right, as opposed to just being so tedious that people give up). Israel would have a more positive image if you never posted on the topic again.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 12:10 PM

"My name is George. I'm unemployed and I live with my parents."
I must have you.
Agreed, although I'd also go so far as to say that while the law may not be racist as written, it certainly provides a handy tool for racist/bigoted people to use to be racist/bigoted with. That bothers -- I don't like seeing the courts and jails used as weapons by assholes.
Well, yeah.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 12:30 PM

And FinnAgain: you are fucking nuts. Seriously. Watching you go off on someone for disagreeing with you over anything related to Israel with wildly disproportionate rhetoric and accusations for what seems like the millionth time

Ooooh, that frequent lie. It'll work better if you tell it more times Giraffe. That's the ticket. It's not a Big Lie if you don't really go hog wild with it.
Or just fucking stop lying, really, how hard is it?
I disagree with honest people on the subject quite often, because we can discuss facts. But since there are a small number of people whose stock in trade is deception and dishonesty, I call them on it. Pretending that they're everybody is just fucking stupid. In point of fact, you're now actually defending "wildly disproportionate rhetoric" (you know, the original lie that a Palestinian man was charged with the crime of being Palestinian and jailed for it in Israel?) so you can lie about me. And, of course, you're ignoring bigotry like Dio's spew about how since he hates Israelis, then he can just make up hypotheticals and pretend they're real and there's no reason to have to actually prove them or anything. But it sure is awful that I went and pointed out the fact that his nonsense is based on nothing but bigotry. Yeep. Go figure.

You're just another in a line of schmucks who get your panties in a bunch because I point out that people who are lying are, in fact, lying. You don't care about the fact that they're verifiably lying, only the fact that I pointed it out.
As for your nonsense about "winning" debates. Obviously, some people, like you, don't care if some of the advocates for a particular position reliably do so with lies and bigotry. That's okay.

You're just spewing the standard idiocy. Sure, the anti-Israel crowd has a reliable set of just a few posters who regularly use dishonesty to sell their shit, but calling them on it is awful, just awful! And idiots who have an opinion of a nation because of someone posting on a message board are borderline mentally retarded anyways and you can concern yourself with them if you really want.

Giraffe

07-22-2010, 12:40 PM

Ooooh, that frequent lie. It'll work better if you tell it more times Giraffe. That's the ticket. It's not a Big Lie if you don't really go hog wild with it.
Or just fucking stop lying, really, how hard is it?
See, foamy, this is why you're stupid. Calling someone a liar for voicing their opinion of how you post on a given issue makes you look like a lunatic. Because it's not your actual views that I'm criticizing, it's the terrible, ineffective way you express them. How can that be a lie? Do you think I secretly believe you are wonderfully eloquent and effective but have instead embarked on a disinformation campaign to discredit you?

The fact that your only response to disagreement or criticism is to reflexively call everyone liars and bigots shows how disconnected from reality you are. It's also super annoying.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 12:42 PM

Agreed, although I'd also go so far as to say that while the law may not be racist as written, it certainly provides a handy tool for racist/bigoted people to use to be racist/bigoted with. That bothers -- I don't like seeing the courts and jails used as weapons by assholes.

I don't see how it provides such a "tool", any more than any other law. Less in fact.

As it is, the racist person would have to have sex with the person they are racist against in order to use that "tool", which if they were really racist, would be an odd sort of way to go about being racist. :D

Giraffe

07-22-2010, 12:50 PM

I don't see how it provides such a "tool", any more than any other law. Less in fact.

As it is, the racist person would have to have sex with the person they are racist against in order to use that "tool", which if they were really racist, would be an odd sort of way to go about being racist. :D

I'm not saying racists are going to go out and have sex with people to try to get them locked up -- that would be a bit odd. But it creeps me out to think of a girl liking a guy up until she finds out that he's Jewish/Muslim/Catholic/whatever, at which point she wants to punish him. Imagine it in the context of 1950's America, where the nice Protestant girl meets a guy at a dance and is ga-ga for him until she learns that he's Jewish, at which point she tries to get him locked up. It's disturbing.

Guinastasia

07-22-2010, 12:58 PM

Finn is starting to remind me of DanielintheWolvesden. Especially with the whole "Big Lie" bullshit.

Although I don't remember Daniel being QUITE so foaming at the mouth.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 01:02 PM

Especially with the whole "Big Lie" bullshit.

Guin: you are a bovine mouthbreather whose post county doesn't disguise the fact that your brain is simply sub-standard. Your posts, reliably, can be replaced by a sustained mooing.
The fact that the lie that Giraffe (and a couple others) are using is a lie that they're hoping will gain traction if they lie enough is not of issue to you. The fact that I correctly called it what it is, why, that's just horrible.

Chew your cud.

Anyways, honestly Giraffe, you never used to be this stupid. I mean, you're going Full Retard here, and while it's impressive to watch you fling your own feces around, it's a bit embarrassing too.

The fact that your only response to disagreement or criticism is to reflexively call everyone liars and bigots shows how disconnected from reality you are.

Honestly, what's it going to take for you to stop lying? Seriously, have you just decided that the Big Lie demands that you lie constantly, or what? Don't you have at least enough personal integrity to cringe when you lie and call your lie "the fact"? Doesn't some part of you rebel against your level of dishonesty?

I know that the anti-Israel Brigade likes this lie and they repeat it a lot, but it's laughably false. The fact that many of them are bigots and do lie (of course, you've ignored the instances of bigotry and lying in this thread to spew your idiocy at me, naturally) doesn't make the fact that I point out their behavior somehow wrong.

Calling someone a liar for voicing their opinion of how you post on a given issue makes you look like a lunatic.

You never were such a craven coward as to lie about something and then retreat, like a whipped dog, to claims that your lies are merely an "opinion" and that pointing out that you're lying is a sign of mental illness when you're provably lying. If you're going to make shit up about someone, then at least man up and admit it. Whether or not something is factual is not an "opinion". You lied about me and claimed I did something I do not. That's not an "opinion", that's a lie.

It's fucking retarded of you to lie about me and then get your panties in an (even bigger) twist because, gorsh, you were just making shit up about me, but you were only making up an opinion. That's even lamer than the "hyperbole" crowd.

Because it's not your actual views that I'm criticizing, it's the terrible, ineffective way you express them. How can that be a lie?

Honest question. Are you trolling, or have you suddenly become mind-numblingly stupid? Your claim was fictional, made up, invented, bullshit. It was a lie. What, you think you're allowed to lie about how someone posts and not just their views, and then that's not a lie because... why, exactly?
Help me follow the trail-of-stupid that you're laying out here.

Of course, you always post screaming rage at anybody who doesn't support torturing kittens. Not that it's a lie, that's just my opinion. Right?
Honestly, why are you being so fucking retarded today?

Do you think I secretly believe you are wonderfully eloquent and effective but have instead embarked on a disinformation campaign to discredit you?

Again, why this level of stupid?
Rather obviously you have decided, for whatever reason, to lie about how I post in order to make a personal attack on me. This isn't rocket science here. Are you, perhaps, running a high fever?

Malthus

07-22-2010, 01:08 PM

I'm not saying racists are going to go out and have sex with people to try to get them locked up -- that would be a bit odd. But it creeps me out to think of a girl liking a guy up until she finds out that he's Jewish/Muslim/Catholic/whatever, at which point she wants to punish him. Imagine it in the context of 1950's America, where the nice Protestant girl meets a guy at a dance and is ga-ga for him until she learns that he's Jewish, at which point she tries to get him locked up. It's disturbing.

Point is that to prove this offence you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) the person lied about their identity; (b) that this lie was believed; and (c) that 'but for' the lie, sex would not have taken place.

The person isn't getting nicked for being Jewish (or Arab), but for the lies.

It is a totally seperate issue as to whether lying in this manner ought to get folks criminally charged. As I've pointed out, I'm against it, because I think it leads to all sorts of bad unintended consequences.

BUT, once you have admitted that lying about being a rock star or a famous surgeon *should* get you charged, it is difficult to articulate a logical reason why lying about your ethnic identity should not. After all, many people (rightly or wrongly) care about ethnic/religious identity as much as they care about whether the other person has a good job, is famous, etc.

If I, as a married Jew, go to a church social for eligible Christian singles and swear up and down I'm a single Christian - and (unlikely as it seems) get laid from that - it simply isn't all that different from me swearing up and down I'm a famous surgeon. In both cases I'm knowingly lying about something I know the other person cares about, to get their consent.

Maybe women (or men) who care about my ethnic idenity are horribly racist; maybe women (or men) who care about me being a surgeon are unbearably shallow. Nonetheless, they have a perfect right to be racist and shallow when deciding who to have sex with.

Giraffe

07-22-2010, 01:13 PM

Guin: you are a bovine mouthbreather whose post county doesn't disguise the fact that your brain is simply sub-standard. Your posts, reliably, can be replaced by a sustained mooing.
The fact that the lie that Giraffe (and a couple others) are using is a lie that they're hoping will gain traction if they lie enough is not of issue to you. The fact that I correctly called it what it is, why, that's just horrible.

Chew your cud.

Anyways, honestly Giraffe, you never used to be this stupid. I mean, you're going Full Retard here, and while it's impressive to watch you fling your own feces around, it's a bit embarrassing too.

Honestly, what's it going to take for you to stop lying? Seriously, have you just decided that the Big Lie demands that you lie constantly, or what? Don't you have at least enough personal integrity to cringe when you lie and call your lie "the fact"? Doesn't some part of you rebel against your level of dishonesty?

I know that the anti-Israel Brigade likes this lie and they repeat it a lot, but it's laughably false. The fact that many of them are bigots and do lie (of course, you've ignored the instances of bigotry and lying in this thread to spew your idiocy at me, naturally) doesn't make the fact that I point out their behavior somehow wrong.

You never were such a craven coward as to lie about something and then retreat, like a whipped dog, to claims that your lies are merely an "opinion" and that pointing out that you're lying is a sign of mental illness when you're provably lying. If you're going to make shit up about someone, then at least man up and admit it. Whether or not something is factual is not an "opinion". You lied about me and claimed I did something I do not. That's not an "opinion", that's a lie.

It's fucking retarded of you to lie about me and then get your panties in an (even bigger) twist because, gorsh, you were just making shit up about me, but you were only making up an opinion. That's even lamer than the "hyperbole" crowd.

Honest question. Are you trolling, or have you suddenly become mind-numblingly stupid? Your claim was fictional, made up, invented, bullshit. It was a lie. What, you think you're allowed to lie about how someone posts and not just their views, and then that's not a lie because... why, exactly?
Help me follow the trail-of-stupid that you're laying out here.

Of course, you always post screaming rage at anybody who doesn't support torturing kittens. Not that it's a lie, that's just my opinion. Right?
Honestly, why are you being so fucking retarded today?

Again, why this level of stupid?
Rather obviously you have decided, for whatever reason, to lie about how I post in order to make a personal attack on me. This isn't rocket science here. Are you, perhaps, running a high fever?

Well, I stand corrected. I can't believe I had the nerve to say you "go off on someone for disagreeing with you over anything related to Israel with wildly disproportionate rhetoric and accusations". Boy, is my face red!

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 01:19 PM

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 01:20 PM

Boy, is my face red!

Obviously, that would take integrity. It seems you don't have any. Surprising, but ah well, I guess I'd misjudged you.

You don't mind lying and will pretend not to know the difference between a factual claim and a matter of opinion. Good, though, that you'll hide behind your bullshit. You started this shit by calling me insane and then following up with insults, and of course when I point out that you're lying in order to personally insult me, you babble about how, gee whiz, that just shows that any disagreement over anything related to Israel goes the same way. Like the standard liars, you've missed the fact that I can and have disagreed with honest posters about the issues, often, without any problems. Good show though.

Definite extra credit is due to you for adopting the standard trolling pattern though: lie about someone and nest your lie in a whine about how awful it is that they call people out for lying. That way either they point out you're lying, and you hooked 'em, or they don't call you on it and it looks like you're not lying.

Your meta-dishonesty is just dumb. You insult me, make shit up about me, claim that the factual claims you made are merely "opinions", and explicitly stay you're not discussing the substance of my views on Israel... and then claim that my reaction to you somehow has anything to do with you I respond to people who disagree with me on matters that have to do with the substance of my views on Israel.

Now slink back into whatever hole you crawled out of.

Tom Scud

07-22-2010, 01:21 PM

BUT, once you have admitted that lying about being a rock star or a famous surgeon *should* get you charged, it is difficult to articulate a logical reason why lying about your ethnic identity should not. After all, many people (rightly or wrongly) care about ethnic/religious identity as much as they care about whether the other person has a good job, is famous, etc.

Per the original link,

While forced sex by deception is an offence under Israeli law, legal experts say it is a charge used sparingly in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage.

Which (1) means that the law isn't one that is being used in a consistently bigoted manner but (2) also makes this particular application of the law sound quite bigoted.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 01:21 PM

Swearing up and down that you're a famous surgeon is, in most jurisdictions, a crime in and of itself. Pretending to be somebody for material gain is fraud.

I'm reminded of Brian Jackson, who was fined $300 for pretending to be various Pittsburgh Steelers players. Guess what he was never charged with? Rape.

Are you contending that rape by fraud isn't a crime in America? Because I can assure you, it is in some states. See the (lengthy) article on this very topic I posted upthread.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 01:24 PM

Per the original link,

While forced sex by deception is an offence under Israeli law, legal experts say it is a charge used sparingly in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage.

Which (1) means that the law isn't one that is being used in a consistently bigoted manner but (2) also makes this particular application of the law sound quite bigoted.

The quote is simply and provably incorrect, since the leading Israeli case involved a situation where a fellow was claiming he worked for some housing Ministry and had favours to dispense in return for quickies.

No "protracted deceit" and most certainly no "promise of marriage".

Tom Scud

07-22-2010, 01:25 PM

The quote is simply and provably incorrect, since the leading Israeli case involved a situation where a fellow was claiming he worked for some housing Ministry and had favours to dispense in return for quickies.

No "protracted deceit" and most certainly no "promise of marriage".

Fair enough. Ignorance fought.

Guinastasia

07-22-2010, 01:26 PM

Sorry, no cud, but suddenly I'm in the mood for some popcorn...

Giraffe

07-22-2010, 01:31 PM

You don't mind lying and will pretend not to know the difference between a factual claim and a matter of opinion. Good, though, that you'll hide behind your bullshit. You started this shit by calling me insane and then following up with insults, and of course when I point out that you're lying in order to personally insult me, you babble about how, gee whiz, that just shows that any disagreement over anything related to Israel goes the same way. Like the standard liars, you've missed the fact that I can and have disagreed with honest posters about the issues, often, without any problems. Good show though.
I said you post like a lunatic. Is that a factual claim or matter of opinion? Seems to me like the latter, but feel free to explain how it's the former.

I also said that I've seen you post like this before on Israel-related topics. That's obviously a factual claim, although you'll note I didn't say you always posted like this, so the fact that you've managed to have a normal conversation on the topic (at least in your own mind) isn't really relevant to anything.

I'm honestly not sure what your argument is, beyond making my case for me by following your standard pattern of calling me a liar, troll and bigot.

newcomer

07-22-2010, 01:35 PM

Point is that to prove this offence you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) the person lied about their identity; (b) that this lie was believed; and (c) that 'but for' the lie, sex would not have taken place.

The person isn't getting nicked for being Jewish (or Arab), but for the lies.

It is a totally seperate issue as to whether lying in this manner ought to get folks criminally charged. As I've pointed out, I'm against it, because I think it leads to all sorts of bad unintended consequences.

BUT, once you have admitted that lying about being a rock star or a famous surgeon *should* get you charged, it is difficult to articulate a logical reason why lying about your ethnic identity should not. After all, many people (rightly or wrongly) care about ethnic/religious identity as much as they care about whether the other person has a good job, is famous, etc.

If I, as a married Jew, go to a church social for eligible Christian singles and swear up and down I'm a single Christian - and (unlikely as it seems) get laid from that - it simply isn't all that different from me swearing up and down I'm a famous surgeon. In both cases I'm knowingly lying about something I know the other person cares about, to get their consent.

Maybe women (or men) who care about my ethnic idenity are horribly racist; maybe women (or men) who care about me being a surgeon are unbearably shallow. Nonetheless, they have a perfect right to be racist and shallow when deciding who to have sex with. You did not exactly understood the point made.

It has to do with the idea that the woman in question would claim rape on the basis of ethnic misrepresentation – which is already bad as it appears that there are societal and other conditions in which such an idea can occur to an individual and seem perfectly fine – but the courts and prosecution took it as normal course of action.

The absurdity comes from conflicting concepts of the often repeated claim of democratic society in the sea of tyrannies and dictatorships vs. built-in ethnocentric discrimination.

One would expect if such a law exists on the book that higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule.

But it's nice to hear rich arguments that one can discriminate not only before but also, after the sexual act.

Guinastasia

07-22-2010, 01:40 PM

We're about due for a meltdown, aren't we?

Wile E

07-22-2010, 01:50 PM

She had sex with him 10 minutes after meeting him? Honestly, she doesn't sound all that picky.

Good Catholic girls wait at least 30 minutes after meeting a guy before having sex with them.

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 01:53 PM

I said you post like a lunatic.

Which is stupid enough, but no, you're still lying. You made specific claims as to specific responses to mere "disagreements over anything related to Israel".
You simply made that up.

Your feigned non-comprehension over why "You do X, Y and Z in response to A, B and C" is a factual claim where as "I do not like how you post" is an opinion is, shall we say, unimpressive.

I'm honestly not sure what your argument is, beyond making my case for me by following your standard pattern of calling me a liar, troll and bigot.

You are rather obviously trolling. You started by lying about me, since I pointed out you were lying, you get to claim that, gee, isn't it awful, I just called you a liar! Why, that proves your argument (and was, of course, the point behind your troll whereby you lied about me simply to bait me into calling you out).
You're also lying about how I called you a bigot, naturally so you can troll on that point too and crow about how, (zounds!) I pointed out that you're lying and I didn't call you a bigot.

Just a bit of standard bullshit that gets tossed around in these debates. The only claim more laughable than the lie that nobody can criticize Israel without being called a racist/bigot/whatever is the claim that nobody who criticizes Israel does so out of bigotry/racism/whatever.

And, of course, showing what kind of a person you are, you ignored the lie in the OP that I pointed out (no, nobody was arrested and jailed for their nationality, that was made up) and instead spewed your bullshit about how it was just horrible that I pointed out that it was a lie. And you ignored that the two people in this thread who I've called bigots are:
1) a guy who has simply made up some bullshit about "Jim Crow" and invented an imaginary situation which he claims proves his hatred of a nationality, but which he can't cite and won't cite because it's fictional. One hopes that your stupidity and malice is situational and you're not always this dense.

It's telling that if it wasn't Dio voicing his anti-Israel bigotry, but something like "[black people] can be counted on to do [negative thing], and I don't have to prove this because, after all, everybody knows that [black people] are bad." then of course people would object.
But when it's "[Israelis] can be counted on to [totally ignore their own laws if an Arab Israeli is wronged] and I don't have to prove this because, after all, everybody knows that [Israelis] are bad." well, how dare anybody call that bigotry!

2) a guy who admitted that his instinctual reaction to any new information is to try to fit it into a narrative that seeks to demonize a national group.
Again, it's telling that it wouldn't fly if he said "I don't think I used to be so knee-jerk [against gays] but [people who defend gays] are turning me into someone who is instinctualy anti-gay. I don't spend time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on [with the gay community], instead I find myself trying to figure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against [gays] and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don't think this was the case before I encountered [people who defend gays]."

But if it's about how someone shows that kind of behavior towards Israel why, it's just awful to point out that it's bigotry.

So, aside from the fact that I'm correct and you're being a little bitch, yah, bangup job there Giraffe.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 01:53 PM

FinnAgain

07-22-2010, 01:59 PM

It has to do with the idea that the woman in question would claim rape on the basis of ethnic misrepresentation – which is already bad as it appears that there are societal and other conditions in which such an idea can occur to an individual and seem perfectly fine – but the courts and prosecution took it as normal course of action.

It has to do with the idea that if a woman chooses to have sex with a guy who tells her he's part of her faith/ethnicity and interested in a serious relationship, when really neither is true, that she's been tricked into sex.

One would expect if such a law exists on the book that higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule.

One might expect any number of things that make absolutely no sense. People are free to make whatever choices they want about sex and what constitutes a valid sexual partner for them. If, for one person, that means sharing a common ethnic background and/or religious faith, then the real absurdity is to tell them that they have no legal right to offer consent based on that metric and someone can freely obtain their consent via fraud as long as that's what they're looking for in a partner.

But it's nice to hear rich arguments that one can discriminate not only before but also, after the sexual act.

It would be nice... if that had happened. It hasn't.
The claim is that defrauding someone into consenting to sex removes the actual consent as one cannot meaningfully consent if they are defrauded. Just like if you defraud someone into a business deal, they're not then obligated to follow it.
Claims that someone can remove consent or "discriminate" after the fact are distortions at best.

That isn't the issue. It's that if they are made aware after the fact that their consent was obtained via fraud, that they're allowed to say that since they wouldn't have consented without the fraud that they didn't legally give consent.

Quint

07-22-2010, 02:21 PM

Here's the part I have a big problem with:
"Kashur was originally accused of violent rape and indecent assault, but later accepted the lesser charge under a plea-bargain after prosecutors received evidence suggesting the encounter was consensual."

Why was he initially charged with a violent crime? Did she misrepresent events, or were the police and prosecutors overzealous in their application of the law? Optics are pretty bad from my point of view.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 02:27 PM

Sure, but none of the situations covered by that paper are even remotely analogous to this one.

I disagree. While some states specifically enumerate particular kinds of fraud which would qualify, all do not. See page 22, regarding the laws of Tennessee and Alabama:

Two states provide for global treatment of fraud in relation to rape or other sexual offenses-Tennessee and Alabama. The distinguishing characteristic of both states' statutes is that they do not specifically set forth the exact types of fraud at issue. In contrast to the statutes in the next part which explicitly articulate the precise types of fraud needed to commit the offense, the following statutes can encompass a variety of deceptive behavior on the part of perpetrators.
[Emphasis added]

Such fraud is defined as "used in normal parlance and includes,
but is not limited to, deceit, trickery, misrepresentation and subterfuge, and shall be broadly construed to accomplish the purposes of this title; . . . ." [FN334] Finally, Tennessee provides that consent is not effective when it is induced by
deception.

I do not see how this differes materially from the Israeli law in issue.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 02:30 PM

You did not exactly understood the point made.

It has to do with the idea that the woman in question would claim rape on the basis of ethnic misrepresentation – which is already bad as it appears that there are societal and other conditions in which such an idea can occur to an individual and seem perfectly fine – but the courts and prosecution took it as normal course of action.

The absurdity comes from conflicting concepts of the often repeated claim of democratic society in the sea of tyrannies and dictatorships vs. built-in ethnocentric discrimination.

One would expect if such a law exists on the book that higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule.

But it's nice to hear rich arguments that one can discriminate not only before but also, after the sexual act.

I'm pretty sure I don't understand your point. Are you claiming that if a person lies to gain sex, the lie should be overlooked in some cases on the basis of some "higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender"?

Malthus

07-22-2010, 02:33 PM

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 02:36 PM

I do not see how this differes materially from the Israeli law in issue.
Well, since the Tennessee and Alabama statutes have never been interpreted in this manner, it seems pretty obvious that they do differ materially.

As far as I can tell, the relevant Israeli law has not actually been cited here, but Israeli legal analysts all apparently consider this application of it unusual, to say the least.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 02:45 PM

Well, since the Tennessee and Alabama statutes have never been interpreted in this manner, it seems pretty obvious that they do differ materially.

If ypu mean they have never been interpreted so as to charge an Israeli Arab with lying about being a Jew for sleeping with an Israeli Jew, you are probably right ... but other than that, I haven't seen any actual proof of how they have been interpreted. No-one has cited any case law, one way or the other. So I'd hesitate to state with such positivity that it has "never" been applied "in this manner".

Point is that, as the article states, they cast the net of what constitutes "fraud" widely, and that deception vitiates consent.

As far as I can tell, the relevant Israeli law has not actually been cited here, but Israeli legal analysts all apparently consider this application of it unusual, to say the least.

The "Israeli legal analyst" quoted in the article claimed that the law was generally only applied in cases of "protracted deceit" and with a "promise of marriage". As pointed out upthread, this does not fit the description of the leading Israeli case (which involved a guy posing as a Ministry official dispensing favours), so this characterization of the law must clearly be incorrect.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 02:53 PM

If ypu mean they have never been interpreted so as to charge an Israeli Arab with lying about being a Jew for sleeping with an Israeli Jew, you are probably right ...
:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

newcomer

07-22-2010, 02:53 PM

It has to do with the idea that if a woman chooses to have sex with a guy who tells her he's part of her faith/ethnicity and interested in a serious relationship, when really neither is true, that she's been tricked into sex. A serious relationship?! This is beyond repair.

In those 10 minutes poor guy probably did not say one thing that has any basis in reality. I wonder what judge would say if the woman’s complaint was that his “instrument” is not exactly as advertised:

Woman: “Well, Your Honor, I was really itchy for some 8-9 incher, you know, and he seemed he had a potential to deliver. But, to my horror, I realized it was only 7 and a half and, Your Honor, I worked it and worked it hoping to get him to erect the truth but to no avail. Seven and a half just won’t work for me. I have standards, Your Honor.”
Judge: “Good enough for me... er, I mean your argument. Ruled in favor of plaintiff! Next case.”

But, I’ll give her credit on being smart - she chose a lie that has most potential.

It’s time horny Jewish women carry a lie detector.

Captain Amazing

07-22-2010, 02:54 PM

Malthus

07-22-2010, 02:57 PM

:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Considering no case law has been cited, an allegation that the law has "never been interepreted that way' deserved such a response. :p

Just what were you basing that conclusion on?

Duke

07-22-2010, 03:01 PM

I'm reminded of Brian Jackson, who was fined $300 for pretending to be various Pittsburgh Steelers players. Guess what he was never charged with? Rape.

Good thing he didn't pretend to be Ben Roethlisberger!

Jimmy Chitwood

07-22-2010, 03:14 PM

You did not exactly understood the point made.

It has to do with the idea that the woman in question would claim rape on the basis of ethnic misrepresentation – which is already bad as it appears that there are societal and other conditions in which such an idea can occur to an individual and seem perfectly fine – but the courts and prosecution took it as normal course of action.

The absurdity comes from conflicting concepts of the often repeated claim of democratic society in the sea of tyrannies and dictatorships vs. built-in ethnocentric discrimination.

One would expect if such a law exists on the book that higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule.

But it's nice to hear rich arguments that one can discriminate not only before but also, after the sexual act.

Is it your belief that people in most, or even some democratic nations are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, and gender when choosing who to have sex with?

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 03:15 PM

Of course they can. However, they are not allowed to do so after the fact.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-22-2010, 03:18 PM

The laws of, like, time and space cover that already.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 03:20 PM

Right, which is why this wasn't rape, and the judge is a moron. She had given consent, and did not withdraw it until some time after they were done with the fuckin'.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-22-2010, 03:26 PM

OK. I'm not really sure how to avoid just going back and forth over the same point, but those are unsustainable ways to define both rape and consent, and that approach ignores the entire conceptual framework of fraud.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 03:27 PM

Yes. However, since the "fraudulent" conduct at issue here is that the accused rapist called himself Daniel, I think we can safely ignore it.

Honesty

07-22-2010, 03:30 PM

\
Laudenum, your untruthful statement was stating that he was "jailed for being Palestinian"; that is untrue - he was jailed for fraudulently representing himself to get sex according to the same law that has jailed Jewish Israelis on the same charge.

This doesn't make sense to me. This assumes the Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to get sex with this specific girl - how do you know that? If I were a Palestinian that could "pass" as a Jew, I'd do it in a heartbeat - wouldn't you? I'm black and I *always* check my ethnicity as "white" whenever I asked on forms. Should I be fined or imprisoned too because I misrepresented myself? I've gone to the DMV and shouted down a state employee when she tried to check that I was "black" when I had infact put white. Until there are compulsory lab exams to determine ethnicity, *I am* what I say I am and there really shouldn't be an argument about it. My view, in this case, is that the State has no business inquiring about my ethnicity at all.

What is the litmus test to determine whether an individual is Palestinian or Jewish? Is free speech protected in Israel or not?

- Honesty

Jackmannii

07-22-2010, 03:33 PM

Are you contending that rape by fraud isn't a crime in America? Because I can assure you, it is in some states. See the (lengthy) article on this very topic I posted upthread.Sure, but none of the situations covered by that paper are even remotely analogous to this one.First of all, the case described in the OP is highly unusual and controversial, so it's not surprising that exact precedent is not turning up.
I also linked to a legal article (http://www.justdetention.org/pdf/Rape%20by%20Fraud.pdf) upthread which described a number of cases prosecuted under rape-by-fraud laws - one of which was an Israeli case involving a (presumably) Jewish man found guilty of nine counts of sexual assault and fraud involving women he seduced by claiming to be a rabbi who could cure them of, well, something. This example was dismissed by another poster as being completely different from the case in the OP, as it pertained to a Jewish male who falsely assumed a religious identity as opposed to the case in the OP, which involved a Muslim male who falsely assumed a religious identity, and...oops.

Nothing logical and factual must be allowed to interfere with the Israel-Evil-Apartheid-Jim Crow conclusion that some here are determined to reach.

Argue that the application of the law in the current case was unreasonable and unfair, criticize some rape by fraud laws as being open to abuse and a reasonable discussion can be had. Trying to shoehorn this case into one's petrified Good/Evil view of the Middle East is contemptible.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-22-2010, 03:35 PM

Yes. However, since the "fraudulent" conduct at issue here is that the accused rapist called himself Daniel, I think we can safely ignore it.

OK, you disagree with the conclusion, which is presumably based on more facts than the above.

But that's suddenly a different conversation than the one about whether a "higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule" a woman's decision about a man's level of Jewishness being relevant to a sexual relationship.

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 03:37 PM

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 03:41 PM

But that's suddenly a different conversation than the one about whether a "higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender should overrule" a woman's decision about a man's level of Jewishness being relevant to a sexual relationship.
Of course it is - but since I never quoted the post which raises that question, or claimed to be responding to it, I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you assumed I was in the first place.

I am not making any sweeping statements here. I'm saying that in this particular case, the dude is getting fucked for no greater crime than letting some chick make assumptions about his favorite works of fiction.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-22-2010, 03:50 PM

Of course it is - but since I never quoted the post which raises that question, or claimed to be responding to it, I'm somewhat at a loss as to why you assumed I was in the first place.

Seriously?

Guinastasia

07-22-2010, 04:02 PM

Good thing he didn't pretend to be Ben Roethlisberger!

Actually, he did! (Unless you're talking about the guy in the OP, not Jackson)

Bryan Ekers

07-22-2010, 04:23 PM

Steven Wright: ...and then she said she was turned on by Jewish cowboys. She asked me my name and I said 'Bucky Goldstein'.

Quint

07-22-2010, 04:29 PM

People accept plea-bargains all the time. In every case, does this mean that the police were overzealous and/or alleged victims lying about the more serious charge?
OK, I'll try to explain my point better. The guy is initially charged with violent rape and indecent assault. Would he be charged with these crimes if the victim alleged that he lied to seduce her? If so the cops are being overzealous, as lying to obtain sex is not violent rape. If she said that he violently raped her and that is why he was initially charged that way, she was lying.
In either event, I understand that plea bargains happen all the time, I have just never heard of an assault case being bargained down to fraud, which is what people here are comparing the incident to. However, I am obviously not a lawyer and may just not be understanding something.

Gangster Octopus

07-22-2010, 04:42 PM

Wait a Jewish girl and a Muslim man had sex....EWWWWWWW!!

(j/k)

Malthus

07-22-2010, 04:52 PM

OK, I'll try to explain my point better. The guy is initially charged with violent rape and indecent assault. Would he be charged with these crimes if the victim alleged that he lied to seduce her? If so the cops are being overzealous, as lying to obtain sex is not violent rape. If she said that he violently raped her and that is why he was initially charged that way, she was lying.
In either event, I understand that plea bargains happen all the time, I have just never heard of an assault case being bargained down to fraud, which is what people here are comparing the incident to. However, I am obviously not a lawyer and may just not be understanding something.

In order to properly address these questions, we would have to know a whole lot of facts not in evidence - at least, not in evidence to us.

Again, this objection is similar to others made above.

This thread seems to have the following overall trajectory:

1. OMG this is so racist. It's aparthied in action.

2. [analysis as to why it is logically difficult to distinguish this case for any other if there exists such a crime as "rape by fraud"]

3. Well, that may be so, but if you assume [all these facts we don't know - like that no Jew would ever be charged if their positions are reversed, or that similar laws in America have "never" been interpreted in the same way, or that the unknown facts surrounding the plea bargain demonstrate that the cops/"victim" were overzealous/liars and motivated by racism] then it is *still* horribly racist!

Well, yeah, I suppose if one assumes the cops or judge acted in a racist manner I suppose this is an example of the cops and judge acting in a racist manner.

My only point is that the intitial impression was incorrect - that the facts as we know them do not disclose any racism on the part of the court, or the cops, or of this law. Which is not of course to say that they are not racist. They may well be. Only that this particular set of facts is not a very good indication of it.

That said, I still do not think it is a good law. Rape by fraud ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to very narrow cases, to avoid injustice.

Quint

07-22-2010, 05:31 PM

In order to properly address these questions, we would have to know a whole lot of facts not in evidence - at least, not in evidence to us.

Again, this objection is similar to others made above.

This thread seems to have the following overall trajectory:

1. OMG this is so racist. It's aparthied in action.

2. [analysis as to why it is logically difficult to distinguish this case for any other if there exists such a crime as "rape by fraud"]

3. Well, that may be so, but if you assume [all these facts we don't know - like that no Jew would ever be charged if their positions are reversed, or that similar laws in America have "never" been interpreted in the same way, or that the unknown facts surrounding the plea bargain demonstrate that the cops/"victim" were overzealous/liars and motivated by racism] then it is *still* horribly racist!

Well, yeah, I suppose if one assumes the cops or judge acted in a racist manner I suppose this is an example of the cops and judge acting in a racist manner.

My only point is that the intitial impression was incorrect - that the facts as we know them do not disclose any racism on the part of the court, or the cops, or of this law. Which is not of course to say that they are not racist. They may well be. Only that this particular set of facts is not a very good indication of it.

That said, I still do not think it is a good law. Rape by fraud ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to very narrow cases, to avoid injustice.

I have not called anyone a racist. The guy was not initially charged with rape by fraud, but with violent rape. I am hoping we can all agree that pretending to be a doctor or surgeon or magical healing rabbi is not violent rape. I fail to see how the police would arrest someone for violent rape going on the story that some fellow pretended to be someone he wasn't to get someone to sleep with him. That's the part that looks bad.

Malthus

07-22-2010, 05:56 PM

I have not called anyone a racist. The guy was not initially charged with rape by fraud, but with violent rape. I am hoping we can all agree that pretending to be a doctor or surgeon or magical healing rabbi is not violent rape. I fail to see how the police would arrest someone for violent rape going on the story that some fellow pretended to be someone he wasn't to get someone to sleep with him. That's the part that looks bad.

I'm not saying you did; I was using your post as a spring-board to comment on the course of the argument in this thread generally.

As to the "violent rape" thing - he said/she said situations are difficult enough to parse; in this case, we simply have no idea what she said to the cops.

DSeid

07-22-2010, 07:34 PM

This doesn't make sense to me. This assumes the Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to get sex with this specific girl - how do you know that? If I were a Palestinian that could "pass" as a Jew, I'd do it in a heartbeat - wouldn't you? I'm black and I *always* check my ethnicity as "white" whenever I asked on forms. Should I be fined or imprisoned too because I misrepresented myself? I've gone to the DMV and shouted down a state employee when she tried to check that I was "black" when I had infact put white. Until there are compulsory lab exams to determine ethnicity, *I am* what I say I am and there really shouldn't be an argument about it. My view, in this case, is that the State has no business inquiring about my ethnicity at all.

What is the litmus test to determine whether an individual is Palestinian or Jewish? Is free speech protected in Israel or not?

- Honesty
The conviction was a plea bargain. He admitted to it is how we know it, apparently.

And it isn't too hard for a Palestinian to "pass" as a Jew if they want to. Jews come in all shapes and colors from Black to lily white and many other shades.

I don't get your lying. I can understand saying its none of their business, but lying? Why? Yes, lying on your forms at the DMV would be a problem.

Fraud is not protected speech.

Jackmannii

07-22-2010, 08:50 PM

This example was dismissed by another poster as being completely different from the case in the OP, as it pertained to a Jewish male who falsely assumed a religious identity as opposed to the case in the OP, which involved a Muslim male who falsely assumed a religious identity, and...oops.
The former impersonated an authority and claimed to be able to provide a service. That is fraud.As opposed to real rabbis, who can actually "cure" people? The latter implied that he was a member of an ethnic sect, and made no claims of service.

You are casting his crime in as false a light as the OP.I think you're also straining very hard (and unsuccessfully) to cast these two incidents as completely different, and failing to obscure the fact that in one case an apparently Jewish male was prosecuted in Israel for rape by fraud, and in the other a Palestinian male was prosecuted under the same law. The degree of culpability is certainly not the same, but the behavior was viewed as criminal for similar reasons.

Besides, didn't the Palestinian faker provide the same "service" as the fake rabbi? :dubious:

Honesty

07-22-2010, 09:32 PM

Fraud is not protected speech.

I'm sort of hung up on this. How is it fraud? Let me ask you this. If a guy tells a woman that he has a 9 inch penis to get her to go to bed with him and she finds out the next morning that he has a 5 inch penis, is that fraud? Should he go to jail? What about in Disney's Aladdin? Should the motherfucker be executed or imprisoned because he lied that he was a Prince instead of a pauper so he could have sex with Jasmine? Men lie and exaggerate all of the time to get pussy - it's so common that the phenomenon is nearly a proverb. This should be a lesson to the woman that you should take anything a man says with a grain of salt.

- Honesty, who is flying on a carpet

Really Not All That Bright

07-22-2010, 09:55 PM

Besides, didn't the Palestinian faker provide the same "service" as the fake rabbi? :dubious:
Yes, but he didn't purport to offer any other service, did he?

DSeid

07-22-2010, 10:08 PM

a) I think the young lady may find out about the exaggeration before coitus transpires.

b) In Disney's Aladdin she knew he was not a Prince before they had sex.

But your point is still appreciated: you are asking whether or not the law is a good law or if it ends up potentially criminalizing common behaviors, even if it is intended to include only significant fraudulent ones. And that is a reasonable discussion to have. But it is not one that has any bearing on whether or not the law, its application, or Israeli society at large, is demonstrated to be discriminatory on the basis of this incident. (Please note, I do believe that there is some institutionalized discrimination in Israel, much akin to levels of institutional discrimination that other minority populations are subjected to in other countries, maybe a bit worse than some or even quite a few. This particular case however is not evidence of it.)

Still lying to get your way is not "freedom of speech" - if as a young man I claimed I was Native American in order to get a scholarship that was only available to members of that group, that would be fraud. Why would a similar lie told to get some sex be any less of a fraud? Is education that much more valuable than sex? To a young man?

Yes we accept that many men will attempt fraud for sex, and assume that it usually fails, and we often exempt it as something boys do. But that does not make it any less fraudulent does it?

jsgoddess

07-22-2010, 10:10 PM

This should be a lesson to the woman that you should take anything a man says with a grain of salt.

It appears the person who should have learned a lesson was the man who lied to get sex.

DSeid

07-22-2010, 10:24 PM

This article (pdf) (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v101/n1/75/LR101n1Christopher.pdf) is pertinent.
Fraud, along with force and coercion, is one of the three principal
means by which a person can commit rape.12 Obtaining intercourse through
fraud, just as through force and coercion, constitutes rape because it vitiates
the consent of the victim.13 ... rape by fraud triggers the issue of whether a
victim’s fraudulently induced consent to intercourse is legally effective con-
sent. As Stephen Schulhofer predicts, “the next generation of issues [in
rape law] will center on when or whether ‘yes’ . . . mean[s] ‘yes.’”16
The two most prevalent types of rape by fraud transpire in the contexts
of medical treatment fraud and marital relations.17 In the typical fraudulent
medical treatment case, a patient consents to penetration by a medical in-
strument (often for gynecological purposes), but instead receives sexual in-
tercourse.18 In the typical spousal impersonation case, a spouse consents to
intercourse with someone whom s/he believes is his or her spouse (typically
the victim is in the dark and barely awake), but instead receives intercourse
with a non-spouse.19 ... A number of factors have led modern rape law to more widely recog-
nize intercourse obtained by fraud as rape.77 First, due to the sweeping
reconceptualization of rape as a violation of one’s sexual autonomy rather
than a crime of violence, consent (which fraud vitiates) has increasingly
supplanted the element of force as the focal point of rape law.78 Second,
Susan Estrich has influentially called for the same standard of fraud that
applies in criminalizing financial transactions to also apply in rape law.79
... Although the scope of rape-by-fraud liability has broadened somewhat,
the criminal law persists in refusing to recognize some types of fraud used
to obtain intercourse—paradigmatic instances of fraud in the inducement—
as rape.82 Fraud as to the degree of the perpetrator’s affection for, or roman-
tic commitment to, the victim is commonly not treated as rape.83 Obtaining
intercourse by false representations of “I love you,” “I’ll respect you in the
morning,” or “I only want to be with you,” is dismissed as endemic to the
illusions that courtship and romance often foster and as insufficiently seri-
ous to be deemed rape.84 As one author notes, “What is being in love, in
fact, if not harboring certain illusions about love, about oneself, and about
the person with whom one is in love?”85 ... by “alluring make-up or a false moustache,”88 or by false representations that
one drives a Ferrari or owns a mansion on the French Riviera is deemed,
like misleading advertising, as seller’s puffery and too trivial to be classi-
fied as rape.89 As a New York court put it, “[i]t is not criminal conduct for a
male . . . to assure any trusting female that, as in the ancient fairy tale, the
ugly frog is really the handsome prince.”90 For these types of misrepresen-
tations, it seems the criminal law’s posture is that all’s fair in love and
war.91 “Caveat amator!”92 FWIW.

Jimmy Chitwood

07-22-2010, 10:32 PM

I think there's an expectation that the law is a lot more granular than it really is, and that causes confusion. In reality, people do things all the time that are technically prosecutable as one offense or another; they just aren't prosecuted.

So, for instance, Honesty, the reason it can be called fraud to lie to somebody in order to get sex is that, loosely speaking, fraud only means lying to somebody to get something out of them. So why wouldn't it be? The law doesn't say "but not if it's something obvious like 'I've got a huge wang'" or otherwise require that it be particularly egregious. Ordinarily, that kind of discretion is exercised by some combination of the victim, the police, the DA, and the courts. If all of them feel like taking it seriously, there's nothing preventing a perfectly by the book conviction for it, which shocks people because it doesn't match their expectations, only their expectations are naturally based on the practical enforcement of the law, and not the letter. It's the same with rape -- "but that's OBVIOUSLY not rape!" The thing is, rape has a definition, and the things that fit it do fit it.

I don't mean to say that the question "why would this be prosecuted" isn't a good one; just that the question "how is this (crime X)" is generally pretty easy to answer.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 12:39 AM

Yah... you're making that up.

Right cuz you've never tried to justify Israel's acts by comparing them to what an arab nation might do under a similar circumstance.

...Like how you repeated something like a half dozen times how the UN created Israel ...you repeated your fiction, several times in fact. Each time changing it just a bit.

So now you're going to bring up stuff I said (and then shifted positon on after debate) in OTHER threads?

No, of course, after you admitted to instintually filtering any and all information through your standard anti-Israel mindset (also known as "bigotry") and that you had to fight to actually analyze the facts and not just fit them into reasons why you hated Israel (for which you blamed me, naturally), you've totally forgotten it. What luck!

Here, let me remind you.

Do you think taking a post out of context is going to make your argument more credible? Dude, you have about as much credibility on this board when it comes to Israel as Der Trihs has when it comes to religion. Its not that you don't know your shit, its that your lack of objectivity is fucking legendary.

Of course, I've criticized Israel, Jack's criticized Israel, Malthus has criticized Israel, Captain Amazing has criticized Israel, DSeid has... and none of them are bigots.
Funny, aint it?

You mean you criticized Israel when you said that you disagreed with Israel's blockade of coriander to Gaza? Those guys you mention who criticize Israel but are not bigots... They're not critics of Israel... they're apologists dude, they may be honest apologists but they are not Israel critics. Heck I've said good things about Israel, it doesn't make me an Israel apologist.

... you do realize that's his claim, not necessarily the gospel truth? And that the woman involved had a different claim? She claimed that he introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor (he's Muslim, and married), and that he was seeking a serious relationship. The court believed her, and found that would qualify as deception used to get sex, which is a crime.

It's fine to object to the law, but at least keep the facts straight.

The woman involved accused the Palestinian of violently raping her...the prosecutors brought him up on those charges...the cops realized that evidence indicated that it wasn't violent rape and the woman might not have been telling the truth. Have I got this right so far?

Then when presented with an alternate story by the woman and the Palestinian guy's version of what happened, the court decided that the guy was obviously lying and the woman's second story must be the truth and the Palestinian guy goes to jail for 2 years for a charge that legal experts say is "used sparingly and even then in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage." because he claimed to be a Jewish bachelor looking for a serious relationship to trick the woman into having sex with him.

That's the problem though, this is a classic he said she said situation. What basis did the court have to believe her version of events? Whatever that might have been I would hope that it was hella compelling to cost a man two years behind bars.

Especially considering that the police had reason to believe the woman was lying about the whole violent rape thing.

The courts have convicted Jewish Israelis of this crime; to not convict solely because the lie involved a Palestinian lieing religious identity instead of job status (as it had in the past) when he is clearly guilty of the crime as the law is written, would be ugly.

From the article:
a charge that legal experts say is "used sparingly and even then in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage."

So in what situations have they used this law to send Jewish men to jail and did they rely on the word of a woman that lied to them the first time around?

Nope. They used blackmailed people into having sex, but the sex was consensual. IMHO sex has to be non-consensual for it to be rape.

Blackmail is a form of coercion isn't it? Consent obtained through coercion isn't really consent is it?

There may well be cases of unjust laws with institutionalized racist intent or effect in Israel - but this particular case is not one of them.

I agree, the law is facially neutral and was not conceived as a form of racism but on Monday it was applied in a racist manner.

That's very complementary. :)

Well you're sane the problem is that Israel seems to be run by folks like Magellan and Finn Again.

And in this particular case, there is no evidence of racism.

Not even after considering the sequence of events and the other cases when this law was actually applied?

True, but this case alone is not sufficient evidence that it is enforced in a racist manner.

I don't think it is enforced in a racist manner on a regular basis but I think it may have been in this case.

For the same reason there is here - because it appears, to the uninformed who have not actually thought about it, to be discriminatory.

I've thought about it a little bit and I agree that there is a lot on the surface that seems racist but might not be racist upon further reflection. For example, we might all think that the woman was racist but that doesn't make the verdict racist. But when you add in the fact that the court is relying on the woman's version of events and rejecting the man's version of events AFTER the woman had lied to police about violent rape, the if you add to that the fact that this charge is used infrequently and in more severer circumstances, it starts to look racist again.

But what he's saying isn't "racist", it is simply an acknowledgement of reality: the same would be true here in Canada - many Jewish women would be upset if they found out that their lovers were lying about being Jewish just to screw them.

I agree, a person can be as racist as they want about who they sleep with and if the courts had consistently been sending people to jail for lies of this caliber then its still stupid but its not racist. But when this charge had been reserved for protracted fraud that included promises of marriage and then applies it to a one night stand it kinda makes you go hmmmm.

Certainly, if the law was applied in an unjust manner, that would be evidence of prejudice in the system. But that has nothing to do with the law. If for example only Blacks are ever charged with murder and never Whites, the system is racist - but that doesn't mean the law against murder is racist.

I agree, I don't think the law is racist.

We only have a single case of someone being charged with this sort of rape for identity - that simply is not evidence of institutionalized racism.

I wasn't thinking solely of this incident when I compared the situation to apartheid. Not all of apartheid was facially discriminatory laws, it was more than that and I saw this as another example of that sort of thing.

Also not true. But, again, the fact that a small coterie who make up the dedicated anti-Israel brigade tend to use dishonesty, ignorance and malice as their weapons of choice doesn't mean it's somehow wrong for me to point it out.

Small coterie? More like half the board. You carpet bomb almost everyone that criticizes Israel.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 12:46 AM

PrettyVacant

07-23-2010, 01:42 AM

And it isn't too hard for a Palestinian to "pass" as a Jew if they want to. Jews come in all shapes and colors from Black to lily white and many other shades.

Plus the fact that DNA has revealed Jews and Palestinians are of the same population, not similar or close but the same population:

The shared genetic heritage of Jews and Palestinians (http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html)

Which doesn't make all this weird at all.. It was weird before, with DNA it's way beyond weird.

amanset

07-23-2010, 05:19 AM

Well he's posted several times in this thread since I asked - including replies to posts posted after I asked. I guess FinnAgain isn't going to get back to me and let me know exactly what my "blatant" lies were about.

Does anyone else know? Because I'm utterly stumped.

I guess in the long run it is a good thing. Do I really want another "discussion" with him where he ignores anything I say regarding Palestinians, accuses me of lying, bigotry and being part of an anti-Israel movement, and finishes with the inevitable semantic discussions as his actual points make less and less sense?

Probably not. It is almost the weekend after all and that hot, young Belarusian I've been seeing is cooking dinner for me at her place tonight.

Gyrate

07-23-2010, 05:34 AM

It does. As far as I know, it forbids anyone from using deceit to get someone to sleep with you.It'd be interesting to see that come into play in a statutory rape case where a minor girl lied about her age in order to seduce an adult man. Both parties could technically be guilty of raping each other.

Laudenum

07-23-2010, 06:31 AM

If you read FinnAgain as a parody of extreme Israeli defenders, he is still completely OTT.

PrettyVacant

07-23-2010, 07:12 AM

I just assume he and Alesan are paid employees of the Israeli State, such blindness is too irrational otherwise.

Malthus

07-23-2010, 08:08 AM

I'm sort of hung up on this. How is it fraud? Let me ask you this. If a guy tells a woman that he has a 9 inch penis to get her to go to bed with him and she finds out the next morning that he has a 5 inch penis, is that fraud? Should he go to jail? What about in Disney's Aladdin? Should the motherfucker be executed or imprisoned because he lied that he was a Prince instead of a pauper so he could have sex with Jasmine? Men lie and exaggerate all of the time to get pussy - it's so common that the phenomenon is nearly a proverb. This should be a lesson to the woman that you should take anything a man says with a grain of salt.

- Honesty, who is flying on a carpet

I for one haven't, to my knowledge, impersonated someone else to get laid; though the stuff of (creepy) romantic comedies, I seriously doubt it is as common as you claim.

The answer would appear to be that the test for whether the lie is truly material enough to qualify has a subjective and an objective component: that is, whether a hypothetical "reasonable person" would find the lie to be of such significance that 'but for' the lie, the consent would not have been obtained.

Thus, slightly exaggerating one's prowess at golf, or sexual abilities, or whatever may simply be considered too minor a matter - in the lingo of contract law, "mere puffery". OTOH, lying about one's marital status and ethnicity probably would qualify.

Malthus

07-23-2010, 08:10 AM

DSeid

07-23-2010, 08:25 AM

It'd be interesting to see that come into play in a statutory rape case where a minor girl lied about her age in order to seduce an adult man. Both parties could technically be guilty of raping each other.
That's the pdf link about rape by fraud that I linked to and quoted from. It was specifically focused on that concept. Warning: it is a bit long.

Damuri examples of the other cases of rape by fraud prosecuted in Israel have been provided in this thread. Have you forgotten already?

As far as your understanding of the facts of the case ... where exactly do you get those? All I can find is that the man has plea bargained to an admission that he lied about his religious identity in order to get sex. As a result of that plea bargain he is getting 18 months. If you have sources for more details pleas share them.

And from your pot point I take it that you are trying to say that the statistical analysis of one case being brought against a Palestinian male for rape by fraud regarding religious identity against a Jewish female vs none against a Jewish male for the same crime against a Palestinian female (albeit Jewish males have been prosecuted for lies about their jobs, which I would think is less important than religious identity to many) is evidence of racist application of a law? You sure that's not you smoking the pot?

Gyrate

07-23-2010, 08:30 AM

That's the pdf link about rape by fraud that I linked to and quoted from. It was specifically focused on that concept. Warning: it is a bit long.Yeah, it crashed my machine when I tried to load it. Le sigh.

Honesty

07-23-2010, 08:40 AM

So, for instance, Honesty, the reason it can be called fraud to lie to somebody in order to get sex is that, loosely speaking, fraud only means lying to somebody to get something out of them. So why wouldn't it be? The law doesn't say "but not if it's something obvious like 'I've got a huge wang'" or otherwise require that it be particularly egregious. Ordinarily, that kind of discretion is exercised by some combination of the victim, the police, the DA, and the courts. If all of them feel like taking it seriously, there's nothing preventing a perfectly by the book conviction for it, which shocks people because it doesn't match their expectations, only their expectations are naturally based on the practical enforcement of the law, and not the letter. It's the same with rape -- "but that's OBVIOUSLY not rape!" The thing is, rape has a definition, and the things that fit it do fit it.

I don't mean to say that the question "why would this be prosecuted" isn't a good one; just that the question "how is this (crime X)" is generally pretty easy to answer.

Your reasoning is very logical and I agree with it to a point; however, this particular law attempts to a force a behavior deviates from the reality of male-female interactions. I don't have a crystal ball but I suspect that the majority of men have lied or exaggerated to get in bed with a woman and don't see it especially deserving of prosecution. Your mileage may vary. Would be amusing to see women file lawsuits en masse against men who lied in order to sleep with them.

Really Not All That Bright

07-23-2010, 08:43 AM

I just assume he and Alesan are paid employees of the Israeli State, such blindness is too irrational otherwise.
Alessan is actually quite reasonable. I mean he is actually Israeli, so it shouldn't be surprising that he's a bit partisan.

Malthus

07-23-2010, 08:57 AM

For example. Smoking pot was illegal in California when I was in college. The enforcement seemed to be a bit... uneven. How many white college students do you think spent time in California jails for smoking pot? How many poor black guys?

That's actually a very good example of the problem we are chewing over in this thread.

The law against pot smoking in that state is racially "neutral". However, if Black guys and only Black guys (or a vastly disproportionate number of 'em) are charged and convicted, absent some explanitory factors the system appears to have racism built in to it.

That's exactly the sort of judgment that reiterated examples can provide; because pot smoking is really common, we know lots of White people do it too, and so you'd expect that many ought to be convicted - if the laws were applied even-handedly, right?

Now, the problem in this case is its uniqueness. This is clearly a newly-developed area of law - from what I remember the leading case was only a couple of years ago - and this is the first time any person has been charged on the basis of their ethnic (as opposed to professional) identity. If such charges became common, and always worked one way and not the other - that is, Jews who impersonate Arabs to get laid never get charged, but Arabs who impersonate Jews commonly are charged - then the situation would be analogous to the "Blacks smoking pot" situation.

As it is, there is simply not enough data to make that determination. You cannot logically base "systemic' discrimination on the basis of a single data point.

amanset

07-23-2010, 09:12 AM

Alessan is actually quite reasonable. I mean he is actually Israeli, so it shouldn't be surprising that he's a bit partisan.

Indeed. He shows none of the rabid mentalism of FinnAgain. I may not agree with him all the time, but I can certainly discuss things with him.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 10:21 AM

I just assume he and Alesan are paid employees of the Israeli State, such blindness is too irrational otherwise.

You can't buy that kind of irrationality.

I don't think Alessan calls epople anti-semites as regularly as Finn Again does YMMV.

FinnAgain

07-23-2010, 10:59 AM

Right cuz you've never tried to justify Israel's acts by comparing them to what an arab nation might do under a similar circumstance.

No, you're making that up. Would it help you if I pretend that I'm surprised that you'd do such a thing?

So now you're going to bring up stuff I said (and then shifted positon on after debate) in OTHER threads?
Do you think taking a post out of context is going to make your argument more credible?

First off, you're full of shit when you claim you "shifted position", the whole point is that regardless of the information, you kept the same exact position again and again and again. Which, of course, is the point. You're the kind of person who doesn't let facts get in the way of your anti-Israel narrative.
Second, I quoted and linked to the entire post where you admitted that you're bigoted against a nation rather than looking at the facts and objecting to any specific set of policies. And there's no "context" in which your admission of bigotry becomes not-bigotry, your dodge is rather lame, but expected.

Those guys you mention who criticize Israel but are not bigots... They're not critics of Israel... they're apologists

Maybe in your view (which you pretend is objective even after admitting that you habitually look for ways to further your anti-Israel narrative and have to fight against your bigotry), criticizing Israel doesn't count unless someone is also a kneejerk anti-Israel partisan. Of course, back in reality, I pointed out several people who've gone on record criticizing Israel but since they're not part of the anti-Israel brigade and they actually engage in object analysis of the facts rather than your biigoted narrative, why, they must be "apologists". And so they totally don't count.

You'd be hard pressed to find any aspect of Israel that hasn't been criticized by one of the other of the folks I listed, but that's not good enough for you. It's not enough to be a knowledgeable individual who takes issues with specific policies, folks need to have the same anti-Israel narrative that you've admitted to or else they're "apologists". Neat little world you have there.

legal experts say is "used sparingly and even then in cases involving protracted deceit and a promise of marriage."

Yep, this is the kind dishonesty you habitually engage in to further your stated anti-Israel narrative. Not too surprising. It's been clarified, in this very thread, again and again, that the law has been used multiple times when there was no issue of protracted deceit and no promise of marriage. But you aren't go to let the facts get in the way of your nonsense.

Unsurprising.

You can't buy that kind of irrationality.
I don't think Alessan calls epople anti-semites as regularly as Finn Again does YMMV.

You, who've admitted you're a bigot who instinctively looks to find ways to demonize Israel regardless of the facts or any actual analysis and who routinely ignored facts or uses non-facts as long as they prop up that narrative... you're accusing someone of "irrationality" for pointing out what kind of a person you are. It's comedy, on a certain level.

Of course, you're also making up the fact that I call people anti-semites at all regularly. I don't, that's your fiction. I know it's part of the Big Lie that you folks have got going, but it simply doesn't fly. Likewise, as part of the standrd anti-Israel Brigade's narrative, you also would rather look at whether or not the accusation is made rather than whether or not they're any substance to it. Like going to a cat convention and savagely nibbling on the ankles of someone while decrying that, why, he said that a lot of thigns there were cats! If you don't want me to point out the biases and dishonesty of your little coterie, stop using dishonesty in service of your anti-Israel narrative. Is it really that hard? And while you're at it, maybe find out wtf you're talking about before you make an argument. Not that "I have no idea what the facts are but I'm willing to demonize Israel!" isn't cute, and all.

Of course, a good few of your little coterie are bigoted against a nation, so I suppose you can pat yourselves on the back that you are only bigots and not racists. Truly, a noble distinction.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 12:13 PM

That's the pdf link about rape by fraud that I linked to and quoted from. It was specifically focused on that concept. Warning: it is a bit long.

Damuri examples of the other cases of rape by fraud prosecuted in Israel have been provided in this thread. Have you forgotten already?

I saw some refeernce to other cases where jewish men were convicted of the same charge. I don't remember seeing links with the details but I do remmeber seeing a quote by a former prosecutor saying that this was rarely prosecuted and usually only in cases of protracted fraud or promises of marriage.

As far as your understanding of the facts of the case ... where exactly do you get those? All I can find is that the man has plea bargained to an admission that he lied about his religious identity in order to get sex. As a result of that plea bargain he is getting 18 months. If you have sources for more details pleas share them.

I googles the guy's last name Kashur, Palestinian, violent, rape and fraud. I got a bunch of articles. A lot of them have somewhat conflicting accounts, for example, most articles state for a fact that Kashur pretended to be a Jewish bachelor looking for a serious relationship, a few articles give Kashur's side of the story but there is no conflict on the notion tha the original charge was violent rape and sexual assault and that the charge dropped to the current charge after cops received evidence that the sex was consensual.

And from your pot point I take it that you are trying to say that the statistical analysis of one case being brought against a Palestinian male for rape by fraud regarding religious identity against a Jewish female vs none against a Jewish male for the same crime against a Palestinian female (albeit Jewish males have been prosecuted for lies about their jobs, which I would think is less important than religious identity to many) is evidence of racist application of a law? You sure that's not you smoking the pot?

You really don't see any reason to think that this is anything other than a neutral application of the law by the prosecutors and judges? It might be that this was in fact a neutral application of teh alw but you don't see anything about how the case progressed from real rape to the current charge that makes you scratch your head a bit or at least want to ak a few more questions?

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 12:23 PM

That's actually a very good example of the problem we are chewing over in this thread.

The law against pot smoking in that state is racially "neutral". However, if Black guys and only Black guys (or a vastly disproportionate number of 'em) are charged and convicted, absent some explanitory factors the system appears to have racism built in to it.

That's exactly the sort of judgment that reiterated examples can provide; because pot smoking is really common, we know lots of White people do it too, and so you'd expect that many ought to be convicted - if the laws were applied even-handedly, right?

Now, the problem in this case is its uniqueness. This is clearly a newly-developed area of law - from what I remember the leading case was only a couple of years ago - and this is the first time any person has been charged on the basis of their ethnic (as opposed to professional) identity. If such charges became common, and always worked one way and not the other - that is, Jews who impersonate Arabs to get laid never get charged, but Arabs who impersonate Jews commonly are charged - then the situation would be analogous to the "Blacks smoking pot" situation.

As it is, there is simply not enough data to make that determination. You cannot logically base "systemic' discrimination on the basis of a single data point.

You're right that this is not EXACTLY analogous to the pot example because there is only one Palestinian sitting in jail for this crime. I agree that the argument would be stronger if there were a hundred palestinian sitting in jail for this crime.

But I would like to point to the case of the 18 eyar old black high school senior who got sentenced to 10 years in jail in Florida who had sex with an with a 16 eyar old white girl and got sent to jail for a blow job (they couldn't get him on rape because it was obviously consensual, they couldn't get him on statutory rape because of Romeo and Juliet laws, so they got him for something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or sodomy or something because the girl gave him oral sex. The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case. They started with all sorts of charges that couldn't be supported until they found one that would stick. I think that this case might be a bit like the Florida case.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 12:46 PM

Of course, a good few of your little coterie are bigoted against a nation, so I suppose you can pat yourselves on the back that you are only bigots and not racists. Truly, a noble distinction.

Its not some small minority of anti-semites that you are talking about. Half the board thinks you foam at the mouth whenever someone criticizes Israel. In any given thread about Israel you are calling half the posters (usually more) anti-semites.

My opinion of Israel is subject to change depending on what Israel does. When they do something I think praisewortyhy, i praise them and when they do something I think deserves criticism, I criticize them. Your opinion of Israel is inflexible and does nto change regardfless of what Israel does.

Malthus

07-23-2010, 01:00 PM

You're right that this is not EXACTLY analogous to the pot example because there is only one Palestinian sitting in jail for this crime. I agree that the argument would be stronger if there were a hundred palestinian sitting in jail for this crime.

I'd put it differently - that there would *be* an argument, and a good one, if there were lots of examples one way and none the other.

But I would like to point to the case of the 18 eyar old black high school senior who got sentenced to 10 years in jail in Florida who had sex with an with a 16 eyar old white girl and got sent to jail for a blow job (they couldn't get him on rape because it was obviously consensual, they couldn't get him on statutory rape because of Romeo and Juliet laws, so they got him for something like contributing to the delinquency of a minor or sodomy or something because the girl gave him oral sex. The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case. They started with all sorts of charges that couldn't be supported until they found one that would stick. I think that this case might be a bit like the Florida case.

I have no idea about this Florida case (the details you give are not very clear), but if the argument is that the case is an obvious never-applied absurdity and thus that it therefore *must* be an example of racism because use of such an absurd, archaic law is a transparent attempt to "get" a guy they otherwise could not charge, that argument fails as well - because while one could argue that the law is "absurd", it has been previously applied to several Jews, as you know; it has not 'only been applied in his case', but rather 'only been applied to an Arab in this (very unusual) specific fact situation'.

As far as I know, *all* other examples of folks charged under this law have been - Jews! Which sorta cuts against the notion that the law is applied "racially".

I dunno how you'd analogize that to your BJ example - it only "works" if Whites aren't being charged for getting BJs, if (as you say) "The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case".

We *know* that's not true in the Israeli example. In fact the reverse is true. Far from being some archaic hold-over from the 19th century like "sodomy" that is just kept on the law books because it is too much trouble to remove it, this is as we know a really new legal development - fueled I suspect by feminism. It isn't an old law "never applied" but a new law where a large body of case-law has yet to be accumulated ...

Guinastasia

07-23-2010, 02:52 PM

Alessan is actually quite reasonable. I mean he is actually Israeli, so it shouldn't be surprising that he's a bit partisan.

I would also imagine that he has a better perspective, than Finn, who IIRC, lives here in the U.S.

ElvisL1ves

07-23-2010, 03:06 PM

Yes, why is it that so many of the most choleric Israel jingoists don't have enough courage of their convictions to actually go live there?

Alessan does live in the world of the sane, true, but he does share some of Frothy's huge blind spots regarding seeing Palestinians as humans and neighbors.

FinnAgain

07-23-2010, 03:44 PM

Elvis, as one of the single dumbest fuckers on the entire internet, I am sure your analytical skills can better be spent vomiting. I know you like to imagine that anybody doesn't see Palestinians as human but, see, that's because you're stupid and your brain doesn't function. Just like when I pointed out that hypocrisy of the anti-Israel brigade by illustrations from the destruction of a camp in Lebanon and the entire town of Hama, and your synapses short circuited and you decided that I was advocating a repeat of Hama.

You really are Gonzomax level retarded.

In any given thread about Israel you are calling half the posters (usually more) anti-semites.

I see that having it pointed out that you're lying doesn't dissuade you from keeping on lying. Please, lie bigger next time. The lie that |I call lots of people anti-semites is stupid and easily proven false, so go bigger. I call people Nazi anti-Semites. No, I call people Nazi lawyer anti-Semites!
I mean, as long as you've decided that you're going to lie about me, lie big, bucko.

My opinion of Israel is subject to change depending on what Israel does.
I don't think I used to be a knee-jerk Israel criticiser but Finn is quickly turning me into one. I don't sepdn time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on in the middle east, instead I find myself trying to fifure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against Israel and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don't think this was the case before I encountered Finn.

So were you lying then, or are you lying now?

Of course, you're full of it when you claim that you change your opinion. As I already pointed out and the facts show, you are totally immune to proof and refutation. You will repeat an argument, over and over and over again, even if it's been refuted and shown to be completely fictional. And you will use the same fiction to support your argument. Just like you decided that a totally neutral law that was properly applied was really 'apartheid!".

And even after the actual legal framework had been cited and quoted perhaps a dozen times in this thread, you still decided that even though it wasn't true, since the claim that it's never applied except in cases of marriage promises and long term deception was helpful to your anti-Israel narrative, you'd use it.

Your opinion of Israel is inflexible and does nto change regardfless of what Israel does.

Yet another lie. Good for you, but lie bigger. Of course I've criticized numerous policies and actions that Israel has undertaken, so your lie is obvious but not quite big enough. Go big! I don't just never criticize Israel, I'm really an evil Israeli Agent on the payroll of the Mossad. If you're going to lie, put your heart into it at least.

Oh and:
there is no conflict on the notion tha the original charge was violent rape and sexual assault and that the charge dropped to the current charge after cops received evidence that the sex was consensual.

You're making that up too. The original charge was not "violent rape", at all. And the "evidence" that was received was the woman's own testimony that formed the basis of the complaint that went to the court. You're just trying to fit the facts into your habitual anti-Israel narrative.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 04:12 PM

I have no idea about this Florida case (the details you give are not very clear), but if the argument is that the case is an obvious never-applied absurdity and thus that it therefore *must* be an example of racism because use of such an absurd, archaic law is a transparent attempt to "get" a guy they otherwise could not charge, that argument fails as well - because while one could argue that the law is "absurd", it has been previously applied to several Jews, as you know; it has not 'only been applied in his case', but rather 'only been applied to an Arab in this (very unusual) specific fact situation'.

I hope somebody can help me out. It happened several years ago. there was a black high school football captain or quarterback in Florida. They had a party where there was casual sex involving a sixteen year old girl. Someone caught it on their cell phone and they sent the guy to jail for 10 years. I'm not saying the Florida case MUST be racism but it sure looks that way.

On the one hand I have credible claims that Jewish men have been charged and convicted under this law. On the other hand I have a credible claim that this crime is usually reserved for situations involving protracted fraud or promises of marriage. What I don't have are the facts of those other cases to see if we are comparing apples to apples.

If for example it turns out that these cases are sitautions where some Jewish guy lied about his job, had a one night stand and ended up in jail then OK, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. No detectable racism.

On the other hand it turns out that the Jewish guys that ended up in jail conned a string of women or conned one woman for a long period of time, then I would suggest taht the law is being applied in a new and novel way and there might be some racism present.

As far as I know, *all* other examples of folks charged under this law have been - Jews! Which sorta cuts against the notion that the law is applied "racially".

Like I said, I think some of it depends on the circumstances of those other cases.

I dunno how you'd analogize that to your BJ example - it only "works" if Whites aren't being charged for getting BJs, if (as you say) "The law was facially neutral but was only ever applied in his case".

I would say that its not the mere fact that the law hasn't been applied in the past. its the fact that it was being applied in this circumstance. I believe that the Florida case was not based on dead letter law that was never applied until they needed something to pin on a black guy. It could have very well been applied in other cases but it had never been applied in that context before.

We *know* that's not true in the Israeli example. In fact the reverse is true. Far from being some archaic hold-over from the 19th century like "sodomy" that is just kept on the law books because it is too much trouble to remove it, this is as we know a really new legal development - fueled I suspect by feminism. It isn't an old law "never applied" but a new law where a large body of case-law has yet to be accumulated ...

I'd like to see the other cases where this law was applied.

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 04:24 PM

DSeid

07-23-2010, 04:30 PM

... You really don't see any reason to think that this is anything other than a neutral application of the law by the prosecutors and judges? It might be that this was in fact a neutral application of teh alw but you don't see anything about how the case progressed from real rape to the current charge that makes you scratch your head a bit or at least want to ak a few more questions?
Indeed I see no reason to think that this is anything other than a neutral application of a flawed law. My head scratching goes to the point that the man settled with this as a plea bargain. He admitted to it, and agreed to the 18 months sentence.

Now I readily admit that there have been instances that count as systemic discrimination against Palestinians in Israel. Thing is it has usually been the Israeli court system bringing the government to task for those instances. The Israeli court system is pretty damn good and even handed. If this man admitted to "rape by fraud" then he did at least that. I wonder more if how this went down was that the woman was given a really rather typical rape victim treatment - "your word against his word, no proof, say it was consensual and we avoid having to have you and your sexual history raked over the coals in court and he still goes to jail on this lesser charge." But I don't know that any more than you know any of what really happened.

DSeid

07-23-2010, 05:25 PM

Again, I want to point out, it is to me fairly indisputable that there is some systemic discrimination against minority citizens in Israel. The examples are pretty easy to document and indeed many human rights organizations claim, likely with good cause, that Arab citizens receive stiffer sentences for the same crimes than do Jewish citizens. I am sure that the statistical evidence for sentencing in general would show the same sort of pattern as the Black/White sentencing in drug cases that was noted above. But that does not mean that this case is an example of that and presuming it is, presenting it as his being "jailed for being Palestinian", is very unfair. It isn't like real cases of discrimination in Israel do not exist. Use those ones.

Quint

07-23-2010, 06:31 PM

Damuri Ajashi

07-23-2010, 10:03 PM

Indeed I see no reason to think that this is anything other than a neutral application of a flawed law. My head scratching goes to the point that the man settled with this as a plea bargain. He admitted to it, and agreed to the 18 months sentence.

Now I readily admit that there have been instances that count as systemic discrimination against Palestinians in Israel. Thing is it has usually been the Israeli court system bringing the government to task for those instances. The Israeli court system is pretty damn good and even handed. If this man admitted to "rape by fraud" then he did at least that. I wonder more if how this went down was that the woman was given a really rather typical rape victim treatment - "your word against his word, no proof, say it was consensual and we avoid having to have you and your sexual history raked over the coals in court and he still goes to jail on this lesser charge." But I don't know that any more than you know any of what really happened.

You're right of course, I only know what people have reported, perhaps the cops are protecting this woman by saying they have evidence that makes violent rape unlikely. Perhaps there is more to this story but I would still like to hear about the particulars of the other cases where Jewish men went to jail under this law.

You are correct that the Israeli judicial system is respectable in most instances but as you point out in the post below, the judicial system is not immune from the societal racism against Palestinians.

Again, I want to point out, it is to me fairly indisputable that there is some systemic discrimination against minority citizens in Israel. The examples are pretty easy to document and indeed many human rights organizations claim, likely with good cause, that Arab citizens receive stiffer sentences for the same crimes than do Jewish citizens. I am sure that the statistical evidence for sentencing in general would show the same sort of pattern as the Black/White sentencing in drug cases that was noted above. But that does not mean that this case is an example of that and presuming it is, presenting it as his being "jailed for being Palestinian", is very unfair. It isn't like real cases of discrimination in Israel do not exist. Use those ones.

PrettyVacant

07-24-2010, 01:37 AM

It isn't complicated, it's called Apartheid. We've seen it before, whether in 1930s Germany or late 20th century South Africa.

Supported by the USA to the tune of about $120 each year for every Jewish citizen of Israel.

Bryan Ekers

07-24-2010, 02:12 AM

PrettyVacant

07-24-2010, 03:41 AM

LOL Because you're worth it . . .

Love that moral certainty of empire.

Bryan Ekers

07-24-2010, 03:47 AM

If you know of someone in the middle east who is friendlier to U.S. interests, feel free to name them.

Turkey, maybe, though it's on the edge of the region.

Or just go ahead and chortle, whatever.

PrettyVacant

07-24-2010, 03:54 AM

"friendly" is a bit weird for me. The USA is buying something with Israel, as it's buying something with Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, etc. All - and others - are complaint states to one degree or another and in return for cash or trade concessions or both.

In terms of regional presence and/or influence, Israel ain't special. FOr example, how many bases does the USA have there compared to those other countries I mention? And what for - all the staging posts are in Germany. The USA has two carrier fleets of Iran that get supplied from a variety or directions and by a range of means.

What is it you think Israel does that's so important for the USA it outweighs just so much outrage?

newcomer

07-24-2010, 11:30 AM

Perhaps there is more to this story but I would still like to hear about the particulars of the other cases where Jewish men went to jail under this law.
- - - - - -
You are correct that the Israeli judicial system is respectable in most instances but as you point out in the post below, the judicial system is not immune from the societal racism against Palestinians.

On a 1st point...

Before providing name of the Jewish man who was prosecuted based on this law let me just state that most legal experts agree that the purpose of the law was not meant to be used for these cases of minor lies in which there is no indication or a hint of coercion or other type of authoritarian pressure. And this is where a case of a Jewish man Zvi Sliman is perfect for illustration of a true purpose of this law. In 2008 Zvi was convicted for impersonating an official in the housing ministry and promising women help and benefits in exchange for sex. So, one can find this law useful and applicable when deception is used as a vehicle of psychological pressure in a given context.

When one examines the facts of this case and the key lie that this Palestinian man claimed to be Jewish, one cannot construe any reasonable basis for coercion or any other type of pressure that would “force” this woman to have sex with respect to her situation.

Which means, any analysis that simply insists that he lied, i.e. did not tell truth and that led to sex act is not sufficient. One has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the lie was a intended as an element of coercion and not simply a dishonest reply to a woman’s sexual preference.

2nd point...

Is this the same juidical system which approved that relatives of the alleged terrorist are as guilty as the terrorist himself?

God, sometimes one can get a real good laugh here :rolleyes:

amanset

07-24-2010, 01:24 PM

...lyou're lying ...lying.... Please, lie bigger next time. ...The lie that...you're going to lie ...lie big, bucko. So were you lying then, or are you lying now? ...Of course, you're full of it when you claim that you change your opinion.... ...Yet another lie. ....Good for you, but lie bigger.... so your lie is obvious ...If you're going to lie,...You're making that up too..

Does it strike you as odd that I lie and lie big all the fucking time and you're the only one that notices it (or at least the only one that thinks it lying)? And yet every Israel thread you shit on has a dozen posters saying "Oh no, Finn Again found this thread"

I used to get all worked up when you called me an anti-semite or a liar until I realized that was what you did to anyone that criticized Israel.

You may know your shit when it comes to Israel but noone trusts that you are presenting all the facts in anything close to an objective manner.

You simply have little or no credibility with anyone on this board (well maybe there are a handful of folks) and to the extent you are a crusader, you are doing your cause more harm than good.

I find it genuinely amusing that we're here, a page and a half or so later and several posts from FinnAgain, but he still won't tell me what I was lying about.

He's very good at calling people liars, but just not very good at saying what they're lying about. Because that would involve reading what other people post and understanding it. Especially when faced with facts that go against his world view, like the numbers of "rockets" that Palestinians have fired into Israel in the last year and a half. He likes to think they are raining down on Israel, so he can continue to justify his own personal racism and bigotry(*), but the facts just don't back him up.

So he just calls everyone liars without saying what they are lying about.

(*) And that is one thing FinnAgain really cannot deal with. He is far more racist and bigoted than all of the people he accuses of such things put together.

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 02:32 PM

I find it genuinely amusing that we're here, a page and a half or so later and several posts from FinnAgain, but he still won't tell me what I was lying about.

I pointed out what you were lying about. And you know it. Good bait though.

Especially when faced with facts that go against his world view, like the numbers of "rockets" that Palestinians have fired into Israel in the last year and a half. He likes to think they are raining down on Israel

Cite. Of course, you can't, as you're making it up.
Also good little trick putting the word rocket in hard quotes. You'll sure fool people that way.

I used to get all worked up when you called me an anti-semite or a liar until I realized that was what you did to anyone that criticized Israel.

You can't find one single post where I called you an anti-Semite. And you know it.
You also just admitted that I routinely do not call people who criticize Israel liars, but you discarded them because they aren't kneejerk anti-Israel bigots like you are. So you're lying there too, and you know it there, too.

Why, do you think, you engage in that behavior and folks other than me don't call you on it? Answer your own question. You know you're saying things that aren't true. Why do you think that it's accepted? Do you think it's be accepted if it was an anti-Palestinian person who was saying it? I'm saying the truth about the anti-Israel coterie, and people are flipping out about it. What if I lied about you people the way you lied about me? You folks like to lie and say things like I call everybody anti-semites, or what have you. How would it be received if I lied and said that you folks routinely call anybody who supports Israel anti-Palestinian? Why, do you think, Amanset's lie above that I'm somehow "anti-Palestinian" or Elvis' lie that I don't think Palestinians are human is accepted, but when people admit that they have an anti-Israel bias that instinctual, people go berserk when it's pointed out that that's bigotry?

As for why your pattern of lying isn't pointed out by others, I'd posit that it's probably for the same reason that the world was up in arms over the war in Gaza and then when Lebanon used indiscriminate artillery fire on a Palestinian refugee camp nobody cared, or how every year we have memorials to Deir Yassin while nobody can quite manage to remember Hama, ever.

you are doing your cause more harm than good.

My cause is honesty and factuality. Obviously many folks aren't interested in either. Just like even though it's been clarified multiple times that the law has been applied several times when there was no promise of marriage and no history of such behavior over a span of time and yet you repeat that error, most folks simply don't care. Or like Giraffe's little spaz fit where he alleged that despite the OP rather blatantly lying and Dio rather obviously engaging in the sort of bigotry we'd object to if his target wasn't Israel but a 'protected' minority. It's the standard behavior we see and not exactly surprising anymore.

It's just what the anti-Israel crowd does. Like the recent Israel blockade thread where Red Fury posted a "transcript" that had entire sentences which were simply fabricated, objectively, not even as a matter of opinion, and not one of the anti-Israel crowd cared because it got in the way of your narrative. It's just what you do.

Dio's bigotry goes without mention and, in fact, has defenders when I point it out. How do you like "[black people] can be counted on to do [negative thing], and I don't have to prove this because, after all, everybody knows that [black people] are bad." would have gone, in comparison? (Leave your admitted anti-Israel bigotry aside for a moment and try to answer it yourself). Why is "black people" not acceptable, but "Israel" is?

Or look at your own admission of bigotry. What do you think the reaction would have been if, instead of Israel, you'd said "I don't think I used to be so knee-jerk [against Palestine] but [people who defend Palestine] are turning me into someone who is instinctualy anti-Palestine. I don't spend time slowly digesting new facts into my gestalt of what is going on [with the Palestinians], instead I find myself trying to figure out how new facts can be incorporated into a narrative against [Palestinians] and I have to make a conscious effort to retain objectivity and that really bothers me. I don't think this was the case before I encountered [people who defend Palestinians]."
Again, do you think that folks would be fine with that? Or they'd object to such bigotry and object to the cowardice the bigot was showing by trying to blame someone else for their own anti-Palestinian bias? Again, forget that it's you saying it, and try to wonder how you'd react if I said the above. Would you be fine with it, or would you think that there was something wrong with being reflexively anti-Palestinian?

Why is it that people routinely lionize people like Jimmy Carter even though his narrative is based on claims that objectively and undisputedly false, in many cases where he provably did or should have known they were false and when they, without fail, serve to demonize Israel and exonerate Palestinian leadership and terrorist factions? What do you think would happen if a well known former President, instead, constructed an obvious campaign of fiction in order to demonize the Palestinians and exonerate the Israeli government of its mistakes? Would that be okay?
Again, look at this honestly and not from your admitted position of reflexive anti-Israel bias. Would the same people who lionize Jimmy Carter be totally fine with him if he flipped his tactics and applied them against the Palestinians instead? Why do people, by the tens of millions accept anti-Israel lies?

Prove me wrong. Criticize your own self for lying and saying I've ever called you an anti-Semite. You and I both know that you're making that up and I never have. And yet you're still lying. Apologize, and don't do it again. If you refuse to, then there's your answer right there as to why dishonesty is accepted from certain folks and by certain folks.
Why, do you think it is that your lie will be tolerated by the usual suspects? Take Amanset to task for his lie about rockets, or his rather obvious tactic of putting the term rocket in quotes. That'd be a start. Why, do you think it is that people will avoid such obvious dishonesty?

Why do you think it is that when the people who I named criticize things about Israel, I'm totally fine with it, but when people do so dishonestly or from ignorance, I'm not? Does "well, they support Israel in other things!" really make sense to you, if your claim (that you already know is false) is that I attack anybody who criticizes Israel, then why is it that the while those folks have criticized virtually every single aspect of Israeli society/culture/policy, I've never said a single harsh word to them? Maybe, just maybe, it's not whether or not someone criticizes Israel, but if they do so from a position of honesty and knowledge? No, no handwaving about how people who criticize Israel but don't do so often enough for you are really "apologists".

Can you approach this honestly?

Giraffe

07-24-2010, 02:38 PM

My cause is honesty and factuality.
Or like Giraffe's little spaz fit where he alleged that despite the OP rather blatantly lying and Dio rather obviously engaging in the sort of bigotry we'd object to if his target wasn't Israel but a 'protected' minority.
::falls over laughing::

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 02:40 PM

Giraffe, I get it, you're absolutely retarded or simply dedicated to being an asshole.
You've proven it. You can go away to your board now.

Can you even defend the fact that you're thoroughly dishonest here?
Was the OP not lying? Was the case really about someone being jailed for being Palestinian?
Was Dio not evincing bigotry? Would we all be fine if, instead of saying it was fine to assume the absolute worst about the entirety of the Israeli legal and law enforcement communities, we'd be fine if he said "You can't trust black people on a jury or if they're a judge/DA/cop. Blacks are all racist in those positions"? That'd be cool, or it's only cool when it's Israelis that are the target?

Honestly, you're behaving in a truly abhorrent manner, don't you have any shame, at all?
Not to mention that you're pretending to be very stupid in order to annoy me. Does pretending to be an idiot strike you as a way to embarrass someone else? Really?

Giraffe

07-24-2010, 02:42 PM

Giraffe, I get it, you're absolutely retarded or simply dedicated to being an asshole.
You've proven it. You can go away to your board now.

But...but...what about your dedication to honesty and truthiness?? I would think you'd be eager to explain how my posts in this thread even remotely resemble your summary. For extra credit, try to use the word liar less than ten times and keep your response to less than eight paragraphs.

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 02:49 PM

I would think you'd be eager to explain how my posts in this thread even remotely resemble your summary.

Again, are you just a committed asshole now? Brain tumor or something? You used to be a fairly decent person, have you decided to just be a puss fill sphincter instead? Does feigning stupidity really seem like the best way to accomplish your goals?
You're really confused, after I pointed out that Dio was engaging in bigotry, the OP was lying and Damuri admitted to anti-Israel bigotry, and you claimed that such facts were a sign of "insanity" meant that you spazed out despite the OP lying and Dio voicing obvious bigotry?

You expect anybody to believe that? That you didn't respond to the facts with spastic falling about "insanity"?

Bonus points for you though for your continued habit of trolling by lying and then beating your breast about how horrible it is that you'll be called a liar. It's not a particularly clever bit of trolling, but it sure seems popular. "Lol, giraffe calls people liars all the time and he's a guy who's admitted that he enjoys live vivisection of puppies and, in fact, can't achieve orgasm without a puppy dying at his hands. Why I bet he's even going to call me a liar now!"

No points for your "lol TLDR!" spew though, that's just old.

Or are you perhaps just being an asshole because of a cut and paste error? You wouldn't be engaging in verbal diarrhea if it'd been "Or like Giraffe's little spaz fit where he alleged that I was insane despite..."
Perhaps you'd like to answer why you originally went berserk because of factual claims in the first place, maybe?

Giraffe

07-24-2010, 02:54 PM

You're really confused, after I pointed out that Dio was engaging in bigotry, the OP was lying and Damuri admitted to anti-Israel bigotry, and you claimed that such facts were a sign of "insanity" meant that you spazed out despite the OP lying and Dio voicing obvious bigotry?(bolding mine)

OK, Captain Honesty, this is a fairly concrete claim -- how about we finish with a link to the post in this thread where I called you insane because you "pointed out that Dio was engaging in bigotry, the OP was lying and Damuri admitted to anti-Israel bigotry"? It should be super easy, I only have a handful of posts in this thread. (Here's a link (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/search.php?do=finduser&userid=8812&searchthreadid=571641) to them, to save you time.)

I can't imagine that someone who calls people liars so readily would play fast and loose with the facts themselves, that would be crazy, so I'll wait here while you back up your claims.

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 03:03 PM

Seriously Giraffe, what the fuck is wrong with you?
What the fuck happened to you? You never used to be such a little shit.

how about we finish with a link to the post in this thread where I called you insane because you "pointed out that Dio was engaging in bigotry, the OP was lying and Damuri admitted to anti-Israel bigotry"?

You're not honestly this stupid. Why are you feigning such a degree of stupidity? How do you think it helps? You stated, repeatedly, that I was insane because of the claims I made in this thread about the OP, Dio and Damuri. That was your very first post. Why are you lying about it?

Honestly, why lie when I can quote you?

And FinnAgain: you are fucking nuts. Seriously. Watching you go off on someone for disagreeing with you over anything related to Israel with wildly disproportionate rhetoric and accusations

Who had I 'gone off on" in the thread with any accusations?
Dio. Damuri. The OP.

What's your lie going to be? You were only talking about Dio and the OP but not Damuri? Only talking about Damuri and Dio but not the OP?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

Giraffe

07-24-2010, 03:16 PM

So you think my post was taking issue with the fact that you thought Dio and Darmund were being bigoted and the OP was lying, and not the manner in which you expressed your disagreement? If only you'd had some way of knowing this wasn't the case, for example my second post:
Because it's not your actual views that I'm criticizing, it's the terrible, ineffective way you express them. How can that be a lie? Do you think I secretly believe you are wonderfully eloquent and effective but have instead embarked on a disinformation campaign to discredit you?
And yet you've followed up with more posts asserting that I was calling you insane solely based on your position on this issue, an assertion with no evidence for and quite a bit against. Some might even go so far as to call it a lie. You, for example.

I wouldn't, though. See, like most people, I get that people can have different reads on the same situation and when they express differing views, they aren't lying, just interpreting things differently.

The reason you are so comically useless in these threads is that you obviously don't get that. So all your bluster and paragraph after paragraph of dramatic accusations just looks silly to those of us who don't have the crazy-Finn blinders on.

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 03:28 PM

If only you'd had some way of knowing this wasn't the case, for example my second post

More dishonesty, or just more feigned stupidity?
You already pretended not to know the difference between factual claims and matters of opinion, now you're pretending that while you were talking about my views, you weren't actually talking about my opinions (which would be my views) but the facts that were under discussion.

Again, what is wrong with you?
Are you really and honestly expect me to believe that you don't understand "I believe that the best way for the peace process to go forward is to aim for something like the Clinton Bridging Proposal and each side should have viable agricultural and water rights." is a subjective view, whereas "the OP claimed that someone was jailed for being a Palestinian, and that was a lie." is an objective fact?

You're really confused about what the difference is between someone's personal views and facts?

2+2 = 4. is that a view or a fact?
Swiss is a far better cheese than cheddar. Is that a view or a fact?

Of course, your base accusation is full of shit too and I don't cast "accusations" or whatever the fuck you were spazing out about due to mere differences of opinion. But one thing at a time, first you can learn what facts are and what opinions are.
You used to be of at least passable intellect, I'm sure you can manage it.

Really Not All That Bright

07-24-2010, 03:33 PM

So did you.

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 03:45 PM

Oooh, burn!
Except, of course, the jackals who have been spewing at me can't get beyond the fact that I often point out dishonesty among the standard half-dozen or so hardcore anti-Israel posters on the board. They haven't even been able to show that I'm wrong about them.

But they have shown that they don't care about that actual dishonesty. When people like Red Fury link to forged transcripts, nobody cares. Or when he names everybody in the US government whose name sounds Jewish to him, and accuses them all of potential treason for no reason other than that they're Jewish, nobody cares. Or when lucy claims that it's perfectly reaosnable to suspect American Jews of treason and that they might very well betray America to Israel just like communists did for International Communism, nobody says anything. When Damuri admits that he's bigoted against Israel and automatically takes any incoming fact and tries to fit in into an anti-Israel narrative and has to fight against his bigotry, nobody cares. When people champion Jimmy Carter, nobody cares.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

As long as the bitches biting at my ankles can only bray angrily at me for calling out dishonesty and bigotry while they themselves can be bothered to do neither, then what the fuck should I care about their babbling? People who condone dishonesty and bigotry aren't exactly the first people who I rush to for council when figuring out how best to challenge dishonesty and bigotry.

Show me one person who takes people to task for their dishonesty and/or bigotry and/or anti-Semitism who is also gumming my ankles, and you might have a point. Otherwise all you have are a bunch of asshole arguing for why dishonesty, bigotry and racism should really be treated gently and politely and that people who don't do so are horrible.

Really Not All That Bright

07-24-2010, 04:05 PM

You haven't pointed out any dishonesty in this thread. You've spluttered for three pages about how dishonest... well, pretty much everyone except you is, but you haven't actually backed it up.

FinnAgain

07-24-2010, 04:14 PM

I notice that you totally dodged the substance of my point, which is that the people who try to take me to task can't ever seem to spare a word for any of the dishonesty or blatant prejudice that gets tossed around all the time. It's telling that you don't care about that at all. Anyways:

You haven't pointed out any dishonesty in this thread.

Who do you think you're fooling (other than the crowd who condone bigotry and dishonesty but get a case of the vapors when someone else doesn't?)
Let's start with a real blatant example: was anybody actually jailed for being a Palestinian? No? then the OP was lying. Gee, that's one bit of dishonesty I pointed out.

So, of course, that then raises the question, why it is that you don't understand that is dishonest, or why you do and you'd claim it's not in order to make spurious claims about me. Care to answer?

After that, we can look at any of the other lies that I've pointed out in this thread, like Damuri's lie that I've ever called him an anti-Semite, or while we're at it his lie that I've called many people, at all, anti-Semites. Maybe Damuri's lie that I do thus and such against anybody who criticizes Israel at the same time as he admits that I'm peachy with quite a few people who criticize Israel, but they don't count since they don't criticize Israel enough (even though his original lie was that I do thus and such every single time anybody criticizes Israel) Then maybe Amnawhatever's lie about some "rockets" nonsense or other, i wasn't really able to track it as apparently he just made it up out of wholecloth and wasn't even distorting one of my positions.

And so on, and so on, and so on.

Babale

07-24-2010, 04:52 PM

So is it fraud if someone lies about being married or says "I love you" if they don't.

Yes and yes.

If a man would not have slept with a woman if he had known she was married and he decides to sue, then yes, it is fraud.

The only reason the "I love you" part doesn't count as fraud is because you can't prove that someone DOESN'T love someone else.

you know damn good and well there would be no prosecution if the races were reversed.

No. No, I don't. But I guess you are an Israel expert and know every tiny detail of its legal system with relation to rape by fraud, just like Marmite Lover is an expert on Israel's plans to attack Turkey with a full-scale nuclear assault.

Maeglin

07-24-2010, 04:53 PM

Babale

07-24-2010, 04:57 PM

By the way, I don't like this law. I think things like lying for sex should be worked out between people, not courts. But if the guy got beat up by the girl's older brother I would have no sympathy for him, just like I would if the races were reversed.

As for my earlier post, sorry; I didn't notice there were already 5 pages.

Quint

07-24-2010, 05:19 PM

Giraffe

07-24-2010, 05:31 PM

You already pretended not to know the difference between factual claims and matters of opinion, now you're pretending that while you were talking about my views, you weren't actually talking about my opinions (which would be my views) but the facts that were under discussion.When did I pretend not to know the difference between factual claims and matters of opinion? You said (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12715207&postcount=124) that I didn't, I think because you believe my saying you post like a lunatic in these types of discussions was obviously not an opinion, but an assertion of fact, but you never really explained why (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12715339&postcount=134) as you seemed to think it was self-evident, and instead spent most of the follow-up post complaining about other people's posts and why you thought they were wrong. It was kind of rambling, and I confess I skimmed most of it.
Of course, your base accusation is full of shit too and I don't cast "accusations" or whatever the fuck you were spazing out about due to mere differences of opinion.No, I'm right on this one. You are a terrible, ineffective poster when it comes to the topic of Israel. My base accusation was 100% correct, which you have been kind enough to exemplify ten times over with your subsequent posts to this thread.

I don't expect you to get this, of course -- your lack of self-awareness is a big part of why you are so laughably ineffective. (Another big part is the repetitiveness of your counter-attacks: you've got to mix it up, man! And pace yourself: let the rhetoric build a bit before you finish off with a triumphant accusation of lying or bigotry.)

Maeglin

07-24-2010, 05:34 PM

You're making that up too. The original charge was not "violent rape", at all. And the "evidence" that was received was the woman's own testimony that formed the basis of the complaint that went to the court. You're just trying to fit the facts into your habitual anti-Israel narrative.
I would like to know what you are basing this claim on. I have read several articles that say the original charge was "violent rape", so if this is wrong I don't think that any poster here is guilty of making that up.

According to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jurists-say-arab-s-rape-conviction-sets-dangerous-precedent-1.303109), he was charged with rape and indecent assault. I am unclear on the details of the definition of indecent assault, but to call it "violent rape" smacks of a certain editorializing. This is indeed how many articles are characterizing it.

Quint

07-24-2010, 06:11 PM

Cort

07-24-2010, 06:35 PM

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.

Chauvinist
Sectarian
Partisan
Racist
Prejudiced

Finnagain: Giraffe is absolutely correct when he says that you are an ineffective poster on the subject of Israel. You use the word 'bigot' so often that it loses all meaning. At this stage, I'd be surprised if anyone cared that you'd called them a bigot, just because the charge is levelled with such frequency. At this stage, it's a bit like being called fat by Nicole Richie. Do yourself a favour and put down the battering ram.

Guinastasia

07-24-2010, 07:28 PM

Or like Giraffe's little spaz fit

You, of all people, are accusing Giraffe of having a "spaz fit"?

I don't know whether to :rolleyes: or :p.

Damuri Ajashi

07-25-2010, 03:06 AM

If you know of someone in the middle east who is friendlier to U.S. interests, feel free to name them.

Turkey, maybe, though it's on the edge of the region.

Or just go ahead and chortle, whatever.

Why do we need them again? It was one thing when we were supporting a nation besieged on all sides by enemies that had the will and (seemed to have the) ability to destroy it. Now it is a dominant regional military power that is oppressing a minority.

I know its not like we're supporting Hussein's Iraq or Noriega's Panama but at least those relationships had the benefit of providing some short term global political gains. I don't really know what purpose Israel serves in our global strategy.

I don't think that this is a necessary precondition for supporting Israel but if you want to defend Israel its going to have to be something better than "its the best we can do in the region"

Perhaps there is more to this story but I would still like to hear about the particulars of the other cases where Jewish men went to jail under this law.
- - - - - -
You are correct that the Israeli judicial system is respectable in most instances but as you point out in the post below, the judicial system is not immune from the societal racism against Palestinians.

On a 1st point...

Before providing name of the Jewish man who was prosecuted based on this law let me just state that most legal experts agree that the purpose of the law was not meant to be used for these cases of minor lies in which there is no indication or a hint of coercion or other type of authoritarian pressure. And this is where a case of a Jewish man Zvi Sliman is perfect for illustration of a true purpose of this law. In 2008 Zvi was convicted for impersonating an official in the housing ministry and promising women help and benefits in exchange for sex. So, one can find this law useful and applicable when deception is used as a vehicle of psychological pressure in a given context.

When one examines the facts of this case and the key lie that this Palestinian man claimed to be Jewish, one cannot construe any reasonable basis for coercion or any other type of pressure that would “force” this woman to have sex with respect to her situation.

Which means, any analysis that simply insists that he lied, i.e. did not tell truth and that led to sex act is not sufficient. One has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the lie was a intended as an element of coercion and not simply a dishonest reply to a woman’s sexual preference.

Well that's what I meant. I didn't know the particulars.

2nd point...

Is this the same juidical system which approved that relatives of the alleged terrorist are as guilty as the terrorist himself?

God, sometimes one can get a real good laugh here :rolleyes:

Like I said, I was mostly talking about their high court.

You can't find one single post where I called you an anti-Semite. And you know it.

Of course you call me an anti-Semite. You call half the people who criticize Israel anti-Semite. You may not use the word anti-Semite all the time (or even any of the time) but you are still calling them anti-Semites. This is the nitpicky sort of shit that makes people :rolleyes: at you.

I've read people say that you used to be a thoughtful poster. WTF happened? What finally made you crack?

How does it feel to know that nobody takes you seriously anymore?

As for why your pattern of lying isn't pointed out by others, I'd posit that it's probably for the same reason that the world was up in arms over the war in Gaza and then when Lebanon used indiscriminate artillery fire on a Palestinian refugee camp nobody cared, or how every year we have memorials to Deir Yassin while nobody can quite manage to remember Hama, ever.

And what reason is that? Is the board bigoted against Israel or anti-semetic in a way that makes them keep quiet as I spread lie after vicious lie about Israel?

My cause is honesty and factuality.

If it is then you are camoflauging it as a crusade to defend Israel.

(Leave your admitted anti-Israel bigotry aside for a moment and try to answer it yourself). Why is "black people" not acceptable, but "Israel" is?

Because I am usually criticizing Israel for things that it has done not things that I believe they will do because they are Jews. I am against their policies and their practices, not their people.

Again, forget that it's you saying it, and try to wonder how you'd react if I said the above. Would you be fine with it, or would you think that there was something wrong with being reflexively anti-Palestinian?

Its not happening in a vaccuum. Its you dude, you're the reason that people are OK with it. If I had said any of that about Malthus after having a debate with Malthus, then I'd be the one getting shitted on in this thread but when I say that sort of shit about you, everybody just nods their heads and thinks "well SOMEONE had to say it"

Why is it that people routinely lionize people like Jimmy Carter

Nobel Peace Prize, only President to make and advance towards peace in the middle east. Shit like that.

Would the same people who lionize Jimmy Carter be totally fine with him if he flipped his tactics and applied them against the Palestinians instead? Why do people, by the tens of millions accept anti-Israel lies?

Maybe because they aren't lies. They may overstate things sometimes but a lot of people honestly believe that there is racism against and oppression of Palestinians. If you want to dissect Jimmy Carter's book, I am sure you can find things in there that are incorrect but you use language that assumes evil intent right out of the gate.

Can you approach this honestly?

I'd like to think so.

Let's start with a real blatant example: was anybody actually jailed for being a Palestinian? No? then the OP was lying. Gee, that's one bit of dishonesty I pointed out.

The reason people don't think that was lying is because they read the actual post and while the OP could have titled this thread some other way, in the context of his post, its not the sort of thing that would cause most people to start their response with "So the OP starts by lying about the basic facts of the issue, this is good."

You just throw that shit around without realizing that every time you use it in cases like that you undermine your own credibility.

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.

He uses that term so that he can claim that he never accused anyone of racism or anti-semitism I suppose.

Babale

07-25-2010, 03:10 AM

Damuri:
Of course you call me an anti-Semite. You call half the people who criticize Israel anti-Semite. You may not use the word anti-Semite all the time (or even any of the time) but you are still calling them anti-Semites. This is the nitpicky sort of shit that makes people :rolleyes: at you.

He didn't call you an anti-semite for two reasons: If he did, you (or someone else) would start a self-righteous rant about how "semite" includes Arabs, therefore he can't possibly be anti-semetic.

The other reason is that you don't seem to hate all Jews, just the Jews who want their own country.

Babale

07-25-2010, 03:19 AM

Nobel Peace Prize, only President to make and advance towards peace in the middle east. Shit like that.
Noble peace prize is a freaking joke. Obama may have been making plans to do something, but he certainly has done nothing yet. I'd rather not turn this into a hijak, but neither he nor Carter deserve the prize any more than you or I do.

Maybe because they aren't lies. They may overstate things sometimes but a lot of people honestly believe that there is racism against and oppression of Palestinians. If you want to dissect Jimmy Carter's book, I am sure you can find things in there that are incorrect but you use language that assumes evil intent right out of the gate.
I'd link a list of all the balant lies Carter wrote, but I know you'll just ignore my link, so what's the point?

The reason people don't think that was lying is because they read the actual post and while the OP could have titled this thread some other way, in the context of his post, its not the sort of thing that would cause most people to start their response with "So the OP starts by lying about the basic facts of the issue, this is good."
I'm not answering for Finn, but IMO the thread title is a sort of Yellow Journalism, which is a type of dishonesty.

Oh, and BTW? He was arrested for lying about being Jewish and for lying about being unmarried. So I thing we should change the title to "Married Man Arrested for Lying About His Marital Status in Order to Seduce a Woman". But that would cause much less outrage, huh?

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.
Maybe because the term "Bigot" is deserved here? If you prefer, we could get a mod to change each use of the word to a different synonym. Would that make you happy?

He uses that term so that he can claim that he never accused anyone of racism or anti-semitism I suppose.No, he uses that term because it's the correct term to use in this situation.

Cort

07-25-2010, 03:53 AM

Maybe because the term "Bigot" is deserved here? If you prefer, we could get a mod to change each use of the word to a different synonym. Would that make you happy?

Yeah, actually it would. I don't know if the allegations are deserved and frankly, I don't care. This is just a message board, and this is certainly the wrong sub-forum for fighting ignorance but I like a good train wreck as much as the next guy and Finn's fixation on the word 'bigot' is tedious and weird. Giraffe is right. It's not helping his case.

Babale

07-25-2010, 03:56 AM

Yeah, actually it would. I don't know if the allegations are deserved and frankly, I don't care. This is just a message board, and this is certainly the wrong sub-forum for fighting ignorance but I like a good train wreck as much as the next guy and Finn's fixation on the word 'bigot' is tedious and weird. Giraffe is right. It's not helping his case.

So you're saying your problem is with Finn's word choice, not actual message?

That's a little shallow, dontcha think? Can't you listen to what he says without obsessing over minor details in the way he says it?

leander

07-25-2010, 04:22 AM

According to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/jurists-say-arab-s-rape-conviction-sets-dangerous-precedent-1.303109), he was charged with rape and indecent assault. I am unclear on the details of the definition of indecent assault, but to call it "violent rape" smacks of a certain editorializing. This is indeed how many articles are characterizing it.

If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?

According to the article:

High Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein said a conviction of rape should be imposed any time a "person does not tell the truth regarding critical matters to a reasonable woman, and as a result of misrepresentation she has sexual relations with him."

Rubinstein said the question was also whether an ordinary person would expect such a woman to have sex with a man without the false identity he created.

In the past, men who misrepresented themselves in this way were convicted of fraud.

One such case was that of Eran Ben-Avraham, who told a woman he was a neurosurgeon after which she had sex with him, and was convicted of three counts of fraud

The only precedent appears to deal with coercion more than deception:

In 2008, the High Court of Justice set a precedent on rape by deception, rejecting an appeal of the rape conviction by Zvi Sleiman, who impersonated a senior official in the Housing Ministry whose wife worked in the National Insurance Institute. Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him.

Cort

07-25-2010, 04:26 AM

So you're saying your problem is with Finn's word choice, not actual message?

Yep, pretty much.

That's a little shallow, dontcha think? Can't you listen to what he says without obsessing over minor details in the way he says it?

I guess it's a little shallow, but it's not entirely shallow. Delivery matters, nearly as much as the message itself. Look back through this thread and see how many posters have parodied or otherwise criticised Finn's ranty-shouty 'bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot' posting style. Style is important, and Finn's is more memorable, for the wrong reasons, than his message. That's why Giraffe is right.

ivan astikov

07-25-2010, 05:39 AM

I'd link a list of all the balant lies Carter wrote, but I know you'll just ignore my link, so what's the point?

I won't. Just make sure you make a list of all the truths he told also, you know, for the sake of a balanced perspective, n that.

amanset

07-25-2010, 05:40 AM

ivan astikov

07-25-2010, 05:54 AM

Good bait though.

See, this is how deluded you are, fella. You really think that some Dopers want to hook you in, when really the vast majority are hoping and praying that you don't show up. Seriously, FA, go and write a book about your perceptions of the ME conflict and go and peddle it somewhere where people actually give a fuck what your opinion is. If you can find such a person.

Hey, Malthus and Alessan might buy a copy, or at least let you send them a freebie!

Damuri Ajashi

07-25-2010, 09:41 AM

Maeglin

07-25-2010, 09:49 AM

If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?

How the hell should I know? The question turned on the phrase "violent rape" that keeps cropping up in the reportage. I presume that the Haaretz article accurately reports his charges, neither of which were "violent rape". Indecent assault may in fact require violence, but I don't know enough to say one way or another. That's all.

Damuri Ajashi

07-25-2010, 09:58 AM

Nobel Peace Prize, only President to make and advance towards peace in the middle east. Shit like that.
Noble peace prize is a freaking joke. Obama may have been making plans to do something, but he certainly has done nothing yet. I'd rather not turn this into a hijak, but neither he nor Carter deserve the prize any more than you or I do.

I am a big Obama fan but I think everyone in the world was :dubious: about awarding him the nobel prize.

Carter on the other hand HAD done stuff. "In 2002, President Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development" through The Carter Center."

Was there anyone else in the world that you could argue had done more... probably but Carter's wasn't a joke.

I'd link a list of all the balant lies Carter wrote, but I know you'll just ignore my link, so what's the point?

I have no doubt there are inaccuracies but when you call them lies, you add a patina that assumes intent on the part of the writer.

I'm not answering for Finn, but IMO the thread title is a sort of Yellow Journalism, which is a type of dishonesty.

Not telling both sides of the story might also be considered a type of dishonesty. Intentionally stating facts that are undercut by other facts without pointing out those other facts might be considered dishonesty.

Oh, and BTW? He was arrested for lying about being Jewish and for lying about being unmarried. So I thing we should change the title to "Married Man Arrested for Lying About His Marital Status in Order to Seduce a Woman". But that would cause much less outrage, huh?

I think the suspicion is that if had been Jewish and married, he would not have been arrested for a philandering one night stand while if he had been Palestinian and single he would have been.

No, he uses that term because it's the correct term to use in this situation.

If the term bigot is to be interpreted so broadly then why couldn't we use the exact same term for Finn Again's attitudes about Israel and the Palestinians?

I won't. Just make sure you make a list of all the truths he told also, you know, for the sake of a balanced perspective, n that.

Well then it wouldn't look as bad and we can't have that.

Damuri Ajashi

07-25-2010, 10:01 AM

The Flying Dutchman

07-25-2010, 11:03 AM

Is it, in fact, "rape by deception" under the laws in question to deceive someone into having sex with you? Why yes, yes it is. That does indeed mean that in this case it's "rape by deception".

And said law is, in my view, utterly ridiculous, if not outright unjust. (I can see cases where you have identical twins switching identities, etc).

So you think the identical twin switch thing doesn't require consequences. Its funny so its okay?

Let me tell you that for many women, who they permit to share their intimacy with requires meeting certain criteria over and above looks. One deal breaker is a liar. Most of us respect a womans right to control what she does with her body and respect her choice as inviolate.

You might not think its a big deal to be fucked by someone who deceived you in order to do so but I'm sure a majority of women would disagree with you.

I'm thinking how would a Westboro Baptist get into Guin's pants .

Babale

07-25-2010, 02:17 PM

If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?

He was convicted of Rape by Fraud. Which, like Statutory Rape, uses "Rape" to mean "Sexual Intercourse Without Consent of One of the Involved Parties" as opposed to the popular meaning of "Rape" as "Beat the **** out of a girl and have your way with her".

FinnAgain

07-25-2010, 02:35 PM

You can't find one single post where I called you an anti-Semite. And you know it.
Of course you call me an anti-Semite. You call half the people who criticize Israel anti-Semite. You may not use the word anti-Semite all the time (or even any of the time) but you are still calling them anti-Semites.

In other words, you're a liar. You can't cite me calling anybody an anti-Semite because you simply made it up. You can't cite me calling "half " of anybody anti-Semites because you made that up too. And you're claiming that I said something else (roughly equivelent, you swear!) to anti-Semite, but you can't cite that, either. And of course pointing out that you're a liar is "nitpicky" but slandering me is cool.

Of course, I didn't think you had the guts to answer why it is that the lies you tell don't go pointed out by others. You just admitted to lying when you claimed I'd called you an anti-Semite, and nobody pointed that out. There's your answer right there; you can admit you were simply making shit up, and not one person on your "side" says anything to you about it.

Its not happening in a vaccuum.

That was my point, you are not only a bigot, you are the kind of cowardly little shit that blames his bigotry on other people. Yes, I'm the puppet master, I made you into a bigot. Kay. And as for your claim that people are okay with admissions of bigotry as long as the bigot is arguing with me, well... that says a lot about them. And you that you're stupid enough to believe that's acceptable.

But again you serve as an object lesson. If it was bigotry against a 'protected' minority, people would be up in arms and your defense would sound like the standard bigoted asshole's apologia. "Oh, a black man was really annoying, so I'm justified in having a knee-jerk anti black reaction!" But no, Finn was a meanie to you, so people nod and say sure, you can be bigoted against Israel.

And you're not honest enough to realize that's not a good thing.

Nobel Peace Prize, only President to make and advance towards peace in the middle east. Shit like that.
[...]
Maybe because they aren't lies. T

Standard dishonesty from you. Carter has been shown to have been systematically and reliably totally 'honestly wrong' about dozens of facts. And yes, despite your defense of a fellow anti-Israel crusader (yet again, ask yourself if you'd be fine with an anti-Palestinian liar, and why or why not). The issue isn't "gee, we can't tell intent!" because in some cases Carter admitted that he was wrong before going on and publishing the same fictions, again. In other cases he absolutely had to know and then the question becomes if he's a deliberate liar or merely senile. Championing a senile bigot is hardly better than a lying bigot, though.
And that's the point you are deliberately missing.

I won't. Just make sure you make a list of all the truths he told also, you know, for the sake of a balanced perspective, n that.
Well then it wouldn't look as bad and we can't have that.

Although you've refused to honestly discuss why you continually lie about me or why you think your fellow travelers accept it, this against shows what you're about. Sure, Jimmy Carter's polemics against Israel, provably, contain dozens of major factual inaccuracies that undermine his premise as he uses them as main supporting details that are often in diametric opposition to the actual facts. In many cases, Carter either should have known the truth or did know and then still chose to publish lies.

But that's not important, because in looking at how Carter's argument is build on "honest errors" and outright lies, you still want it to "not look at bad". Sure, Carter can't get basic facts straight and wrote things he knew weren't true, but can't we do something to make him not look so bad? After all, he's [fill in the blank].

A) A snappy dresser
B) got a divine singing voice
C) a killer vuvuzela player
D) anti-Israel, like the people who want to champion his writings on the subject

Of course, we all know what would happen if someone published a massive polemic laying into Palestine and exonerating Israel, you'd go berserk. Hell, you go berserk when the actual facts are cited and claim that they're not being used "objectively" enough for you.

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.
The term is accurate. But what a service liars and bigots get from some folks here, all you have to do is consistently lie or be bigoted, and if someone points it out when you're doing it, why, you get off the hook.

How much effort do people have to expend hammering dishonesty and prejudice elsewhere before they get to call you an asshole?

Idiots are free to call me an asshole for minding liars and bigots.
Of course, they're generally the actual assholes as they don't mind lying or bigotry, but do mind someone pointing it out.

And, of course your question is rather disingenuous. How about: at least ever, at all. Most of the folks whiniing about how bigots get called bigots or liars get called out for lying haven't posted, even once, ever, to challenge that shit since either it's on their "side" or they don't care about the facts but boy oh boy the accusations annoy them.

As of this moment, FinnAgain has used the word 'bigot' seventy one times in this thread, although I may have missed some. As a public service, here is a brief list of synonyms for 'bigot' which will hopefully make his posts a little less tiresome.

Getting annoyed by stylistic rigidity is your perogative, of course. As you've admitted that you'd care at all if my accusations are true or not, I really don't care whether or not you think true accusations are being made more often than you'd like.

You see a topic with one admitted bigot and another obvious bigot posting, and it's horrible, just horrible that I pointed it out. Obviously that's a mighty good deal with some of the more rabid anti-Israel crowed. They can post with as much bigotry as they'd like, and they have folks ready to defend them, while admitting that they don't care about the charges, simply because the word "bigot" was used.

If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?

Same old same old. he was convicted of rape by deception, which has been clarified numerous times in this thread, over and over and over.

The only precedent appears to deal with coercion more than deception:

Why did you post something that you know not to be true and that was, in fact, debunked by your own quote right above it? Another case dealt with, for instance, a man pretending to be a neurosurgeon to make women think he was more desirable than he was. It's in your own cite. You couldn't have missed it.
Why is it that you'd post something that your own cite says isn't true?

And, of course, the Anti-Stylistic Rigidity Warriors couldn't be bothered to notice that 'honest error' either. Totally unexpected.