You were making an analogy? Sorry, not seeing it.
That’s because you’re cutting the sentence off in the middle? Here’s the full quote, moron:
In other words, he is behaving like a person who might lecture him (a lawyer) about the law based on their “common sense”, uninformed opinion. The whole damn thing hinges on the fact that he’s a lawyer. Now go dunk your head in another bucket of Milwaukee’s Best and stop typing until the shakes go away.
I’m done, too. I have to go to a meeting where I will apply logic and probability to evaluate assertions that are claimed to be true, a task that I do daily, and for which other people give me money.
Note: Race almost never is relevant to this process. I can’t remember a time where it was. But it’s not impossible that it would be.
Son, you were done before you started.
Nope, still not seeing it. Did you maybe leave out some words that my psychic powers failed to see?
Maybe words like “just like a” or “surprisingly similar to” ? You know, words that let the reader know that you are, however poorly, attempting to draw an analogy?
Ouch. Just amazing, those debating skills of yours.
Random, for crying out loud. I said except with statistics. In other words, take out ‘law’ and…why did you think I was impugning his law knowledge, by the way? It has nothing to do with this. Even people who can’t agree about the time of day agree that none of this should have any significance in a court of law. But anyway, my point hinged on Bricker being a lawyer, and it was that the situation was akin to those in which people who do not understand the law continue to insist they are right, even when those with real knowledge come along to prove them wrong. There, is that in simple enough words for you? Except, in this case, the topic is not the law, but statistics. I’m sure even Bricker understands that I wasn’t making any comment about his knowledge of the law – except, indirectly, a positive one!
Precisely correct.
If anyone can find a single post in which I suggest that the CAUSE of the trustworthiness or otherwise is race, please trot it out. You can’t, because I never said such a thing, and I never would.
IF all other things were equal, such that the ONLY observable factor differentiating the two were race - which means that we eliminated all hidden codependent variables as causes - THEN, and ONLY THEN, could we say that there is some probative value to it, slight though it might be.
“All other things being equal.”
I got it. He was saying that I was behaving here just like the people who stubbornly insist that, say, the rational basis test means X, when they’re really just judging what the word ‘rational’ means in their daily lives and inferring from that. In other words, he was appealing to my frustration when that happens and asking me to draw the conclusion that statistics experts here would be similarly frustrated with me.
Yes?
I’m new to the Pit: does every thread get hijacked into two pages of boring, pointless bullshit? Please, Edison, Random and Bricker, follow Badger and face take your fucking boring argument elsewhere. Christ.
I’m gonna go allllll the way back to the OP. It occurs to me that only the OP, some of us posters, and Mr. Francis himself, refer to the incident in the bus as “rape.” The young woman doesn’t call it that. The reporter doesn’t call it that. Only Francis uses the word in his denial. What we are doing is reading the events as put forth in the story, and many of us interpret the incident as rape, or as an accusation of rape.
However, I don’t see any appreciable difference between Mr. Francis’s version of events and the young woman’s. Although his statement is not as detailed as the woman’s, it appears that he basically agrees with her on all the actual events: she was drunk, she got onto the bus willingly, pictures were taken, she played with sex toys, she stated she was a virgin, they had intercourse. Although it is not exactly clear which parts of the statement Francis disagrees with, it seems that the probable point of contention would be whether or not she ever said “no” either before or during the sex act itself. That’s pretty much it. So the question is, if all the events occurred as stated, is whether or not she uttered the word “no?” the only way of determining if the act was rape?
I gotta go, so I’ll let y’all chew on that before adding my $0.02. 
That ? after “no” in the last sentence is a typo, BTW. :smack:
Unfortunately, pretty much.
A private act between two individuals, without witnesses, no indication of weapons of other sources of intimidation, and not even testimony by the potential victim that intimidation or coercion were involved, and no blood tests for the “date rape” drug, pretty much eliminates most factors we could use to make a judgment. The only difference between their stories (on which all evaluations are forced to rely) is her claim to have said “No.”
It is slowly permeating our society that “No” means no, but it has not yet been accepted by everyone. Even among those of us who do accept that “No” means no, in the related story only her claim that she said the word indicates a difference in their testimonies.
Barring a film or tape turning up from an automated camera, what would you suggest persons who were not present use to determine whether the act was rape or drunken stupidity? (Given that the young woman was clearly drunk, I would consider her judgment impaired, making Francis a scumbag asshole, even had she been begging him to take her virginity, but your specific question was one of rape.)
One thread couldn’t contain them. face thought it necessary to track down Bricker and rehash the argument yet again (not taking sides on the argument, just pointing out who brought it here).
You do kinda feel like the chorus boys in the Busby Berkley-ish musical at the end of Blazing Saddles, don’t you? Anyway, I think the girl’s story is credible, although I don’t know if I would send him to jail based on it.
I just want to thank Darth Vader’s Little Pal for bringing this thread back around to the OP.
I just pit you, just in case you care.
Aw, shucks. (blush) I hope that by doing so I haven’t killed it though. Nobody in the last eight hours has anything to say about rape? Or skeevy pornographers? Anyone?
Oh well, it’ll just be us, then.
Why, I’m glad you asked!
The reason I posed the question was to point out that I don’t think it can be boiled down to one particular action, or one particular word, which is why the legal system has such a difficult time prosecuting - and defending - alleged rapists in less than clear-cut cases. I’m not going to look up the legal definition right now, but I think we can all agree that rape would include non-consensual sex acts, and sex acts performed while the victim is unable to give informed consent due to impairment by drugs or alcohol. But even these are gray areas. What is “impairment?” What is “consent?” This depends so much on internal and emotional criteria, which are virtually unprovable in a court of law.
Let’s say we do find that hidden video recording of the whole event. Both the young woman and Francis watch the tape and agree that it is a proper record. But the alleged victim feels it is rape. Francis insists it was consensual. They both honestly believe this.
For the sake of this argument, the young woman never says the word “no,” but she does say “it hurts” (which she claims to have said several times). She might have meant it as “it hurts (so STOP),” or “it hurts (I don’t want to do this),” or “it hurts (I’m scared, don’t hurt me)” But he heard: “it hurts (but oh so good),” or “it hurts (I’m a virgin so it is expected),” or “it hurts (but it’s worth it because I’m having sex with a hot millionaire - and I’ll get free underpants!)”
I hardly need to say that Francis is, undisputably, a gigantic asshole fucktard. But does that make him a criminal? Certainly if she ever pressed charges I doubt very much that any jury would convict him. But that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not guilty of rape. The frustrating part is, no matter what, doesn’t the decision have to rely mostly on the question of whom do you relate to more: the accused, or the victim? (assuming the physical evidence is inconclusive)
Her statements in the interview sound credible to me because I’ve been there. Not in a rape situation, thank god (or in posing nude for free underpants), but in that confusing mess of miscommunication, poor judgement, guilt, and a host of other emotions that factor into being in a position of sexual powerlessness. At the same time, a man might relate to being confused about what his girlfriends really want (or don’t want) during sex. If he’s ended up guessing wrong and in the doghouse more than once, even the nicest guy may wonder how close has he been to being called a rapist. That must be scary.
OK.
So you are stuck looking at some particular act on which to make a judgment–such as one participant saying “No.”
Rape has always been a difficult crime to judge when there was not overt threats or violence. It probably always will be a difficult crime to judge, absent overt threats or violence.
You bring up an interesting point. Is there such a thing, legally speaking, as unintentional rape (as a crude analogy, sort of like involuntary manslaughter)? In the example you site, Francis has clearly caused harm to the girl and gone against her consent, but he genuinely believed* that he had her consent. Should there be some way of denoting that a crime has been commited because there is a victim, but that there was no intent on the part of the perpetrator?
*In this hypothetical scenario. I don’t claim any knowledge of what he was actually thinking when this happened in reality.
That’s what I’m wondering. All the definitions and references I’ve seen center on the victim - that is, whether or not the victim consents to sex. I suppose the intent of the attacker is considered not as big of an issue because then alleged rapists could get off scot-free by claiming simple cluelessness. Ignorance should not be a legitimate excuse for forcing sex on anyone. I guess this would be similar to someone mishandling a loaded gun or driving recklessly, ending up with someone getting killed. No matter how much you didn’t mean it, you do deserve punishment. However juries and judges can consider the intent in deciding the severity of the sentence (I assume, IANAL).
I think it’s interesting to think about, but I bet that it very rarely comes up in real life. If the situation is that ambiguous, it is unlikely the victim would press charges (considering how often they don’t in very, very *un-*ambiguous circumstances), and if they do, the cases are unlikely to make it to court.
But it does illustrate the subtleties of sexual manipulation, which is why it burns me up when people throw in knee-jerk responses to rape accusations with “well, if she was raped, why did/didn’t she do XXXX?” It’s just an absurd argument.