[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Esp. when said venting is the type of hateful, selective outrage that I’ve seen in this case, and those people deny their outrage has anything to do with the racial facts of this case. There is a situation like this going on everyday, and it usually doesn’t have this good an outcome, yet I don’t hear all these people (on both sides) picking sides, or even giving a shit. If you want to be pissed fine, but don’t try to pretend it’s because you grossly offended by the perversion of justice. You’re just mad because some white dudes got fucked by a “lying whore” “cum dumpster” black stripper. If those weren’t the circumstances of this case, you probably never would have heard about it, and you would be bitching about he weather instead.
[/QUOTE]
You know what? Fuck you. Fuck your assumptions, fuck your straw men, but most of all fuck your incessant racism. You sit here and spew this race baiting dribble while at the same time denying the racial bias of your own comments which are plain as day. You have no idea what I may or may not do outside these boards. You don’t know what causes I might support with my time and or money, you know absolutely nothing, yet you persist on making grandiose condemnations based upon your own assumptions. Go suck on a barbed wire fence, asshole.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Has anyone made that assertion? I thought the “whore” part was just name-calling, not a claim of evidence against her story.
[/QUOTE]
I may have misread the emphasis here:
[QUOTE=Ponder Stibbons]
“lying whore”, as Huerta88 loves to say, can be counted on to, well, lie.
[/QUOTE]
I understood that to be an assertion that because she is a whore, her claims to having been raped are of course lies.
I’ll concede it could be read as an assertion that because she is a lying whore (the whore part being incidental here), her claims to anything (therefore to having been raped) are of course lies.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
I see no reason to consider “she was a prostitute” to be in any sense supporting evidence for “she wasn’t telling the truth when she said she was lying”.
[/QUOTE]
Working in a sex occupation actually increases one chances of being raped, according to the CDC. And gee, that’s a no brainer. If you are in the business of selling sex, the equivalent to shoplifting is rape. Ask any merchant about stealing and they’ll tell you that happens all the time. A sex merchant (a prostitute) would be no different.
This statement is pretty ironic, considering how many black men have either been unjustly imprisoned or literally lynched because a white woman accused them of rape.
This case is a twisted parody of those cases. Instead of people making racist assumptions about blacks, people made stereotypical assumptions about fraternity jocks. “These are rich white elitist assholes. They must be guilty of something. Let’s git 'em.”
[QUOTE=catsix]
And to think there were people here who didn’t believe that this false accusation by Crystal Mangum, lying whore, would mar these young men permanently.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, didn’t you post at length in the recent GD thread about the unfair sexual double standard that keeps women chained to such concepts as “slut” and “whore”? Ask yourself why you can’t just call Magnum a liar without using her sexuality as a slur. Then maybe it’ll dawn on you that you’re doing the exact same thing that you accuse the society boogeyman of doing.
[QUOTE=Huerta88]
Have you ever met someone who had sex with two strangers, at two different business hotels, in a 24 hour period, but was just “promiscuous?” …
[/QUOTE]
Yes, hotels/motels at renfaires, tents at Pensic.
Calling one of those women a whore will get you an introduction to the business end of a sharp blade!
[QUOTE=Huerta88]
… I will put you to the same challenge I put the other faux-head-scratcher: If an omniscient being held a gun to your head and asked you what happened when a skankity-skank went to a Holiday Inn Express and another business hotel for respective one hour periods in a one day time frame, and you had to make one guess, would you REALLY have the suicidal smirkiness to say “Gee, I can’t say, so I’ll assume she was on a date with a new beau, or crocheting, or they watched SportsCenter?” …
[/QUOTE]
No, but see, I was in the room when the dancers I was a bouncer for, striped in those hotels. Of the 12 or 15 who did “parties” ONE did “side work”. And yes, while it was a rare event, (and I was really happy that I was heavily armed) we did “parties” where the only people in the room were me, the dancer and one very nervous guy.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
… The latter. She called it “a crock.”
[/QUOTE]
So that’s how many different stories she’s told? Is anything she has to say credible?
If I remember the time line correctly, wasn’t she outside sitting in her car, when what didn’t happen, didn’t happen?
That’s not evidence, it’s opinion.
[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
He certainly failed present evidence (lack of LAX DNA, plus multiple other DNA hits) that would have exonerated them. …
[/QUOTE]
Funny that you can get a murder conviction without a body, or convicted of murder despite no evidence that you ever had the murder weapon,
Hmm, she’s a whore, must be a lying murderer too!
The lack of DNA in a rape case can get you exonerated, but DNA evidence that proves your innocent isn’t enough to get you off death row.
Strange world.
CMC fnord!
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Yeah, there’s no need to dredge up a 35-page trainwreck. Besides, this thread will be considerably shorter. I don’t expect to see too many stand-up posters come in here to recant their previous stance. As usual, since nobody really wants to wade through a thread like that, there’s strength in anonymity.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, wouldn’t want anybody actually reading that thread and discovering how many folks would need to recant their previous stance.
I’m sure you can provide us with a list of posters who clearly took the position “she’s telling the truth,”.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Hey, didn’t you post at length in the recent GD thread about the unfair sexual double standard that keeps women chained to such concepts as “slut” and “whore”? Ask yourself why you can’t just call Magnum a liar without using her sexuality as a slur. Then maybe it’ll dawn on you that you’re doing the exact same thing that you accuse the society boogeyman of doing.
[/QUOTE]
Well, given that she is (a) a sex worker and (b) mendacious, the epithet seems justified. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Well, given that she is (a) a sex worker and (b) mendacious, the epithet seems justified. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Why is being a sex worker worthy of an epithet, in catsix’s utopia of sexual freedom and enlightenment?
If she were a physician, no one think of refering to her as a Lying Doctor. Same thing if she were a waitress or a bus driver. But the mere possibility that Magnum sells sex for cash means that we have to call her a Lying Whore in order to fully communicate her despicability and awfulness.
Catsix persists in calling her this, and yet she wants to be taken seriously when she complains that society makes women feel bad about expressing their sexual side? Please.
[QUOTE=AHunter3]
… I understood that to be an assertion that because she is a whore, her claims to having been raped are of course lies.
I’ll concede it could be read as an assertion that because she is a lying whore (the whore part being incidental here), her claims to anything (therefore to having been raped) are of course lies.
[/QUOTE]
There is a post in the LW thread that takes the position that because part of a strippers job is pretending to actually be interested in/like the guys she’s performing for, strippers are liars and the accusation was not believable on those grounds alone.
My feeling from day one of that thread was the word, intentionally or not, brought to mind the old “you can’t rape a whore” lie.
I have only raised that twice, when I thought a comment came close to actually saying it.
[QUOTE=Malacandra]
Ah, the double standards defence. :rolleyes: [color = #f8f8f8]TWAT![/color]
[/QUOTE]
What defense?
The double standard is the one that allows a woman who has multiple sex partners to be called a whore, a moral judgment, while applying no similar moral judgment to males. Since we’re making moral judgments about her, anybody care to make one about the guy who suggested she fuck herself with a broom for their entertainment?
Somehow I found it possible to not decide who to believe in this case (since I didn’t have enough facts), and not make moral any moral judgments about any of the parties, why was that so hard for everyone else?
CMC fnord!
Dude, if ya want to call me a twat, just do it. Have some balls!
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
I’m suggesting the plausibility of a story is related to the frequency with which it happens.
[/QUOTE]
I await the next 35 page trainwreck where ywtf explains to you the error of your ways.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I await the next 35 page trainwreck where ywtf explains to you the error of your ways.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not going there, anymore. Yall can knock yourself silly with bullshit if you’d like, but I don’t have the energy to go down that road again. But I will say this:
brickbacon that’s fallacious reasoning you’re using, unless there’s more context that I’m missing to your statement. Please read the LW thread. My hair turned gray from the amount of sheer stupidity people were using to justify their opinions about this case. Believing any side without the benefit of evidence is wrong. The accuser should not have been believed at face value and neither should the accused. Population-based stats have no bearing on the veracity of an individual claim.
Crystal Mangum is both a liar and a whore. Applying the term to someone who fucks for money is hardly a ‘sexual double standard’. Lying prostitute, lying hooker, and lying whore are all descriptors that apply to Crystal Mangum.
Oh but honey, it ain’t Crystal Mangum’s sexuality that I’m referring to. It’s her occupation.
Then again I wasn’t the one sarcastically stating that ‘justice’ had been done in this case as if the spoiled rich white jocks got away with it.
Crystal Mangum is both a liar and a whore. Are there other terms for her occupation? Well, like I said, she’s also a lying hooker and a lying prostitute. Would you be happier if I just called her a piece of shit sucking scum who should rot in prison for a good long time?
Because it doesn’t quite have the ring to it. Lying butcher, now there’s a sling.
And now, you with the face tries to turn everything around onto me because she was the one going on and on about the poor widdwe black victim of the big bad white jocks. She’s trying to duck the fact that she made the sarcastic rich-white-jocks-got-away-with-it sounding post in this thread, and I’m a good target for that because I’ve placed a difference between a dishonest piece of shit whose occupation in life seems to be screwing men one way or another (either fucking for money, or claiming rape) and a female who just enjoys sex.
I sincerely doubt that Crystal Mangum is the latter.
While said statement is somewhat fucked up and rather disgusting, it doesn’t quite have the destructive power of a rape accusation. On the grand scheme of things, I’d probably consider the guy a creep. Of course, it’s not illegal to be a creep, nor does it make someone a rapist.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
No, but seriously. I hope he gets what he fully deserves for the havoc he’s caused! I did give him the benefit of the doubt because I figure as a District Attorney that is a reasonable thing to do.
[/QUOTE]
Because you have some previous personal experience with Nifong that made that reasonable?
Or because statistically, it’s extremely rare for a DA to do what he did?
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
I got the impression from the way he worded his comments that he wasn’t convinced he could get a conviction against an insanity and/or coercion (by Nifong) defense, and that she was not what he wanted to go after.
[/QUOTE]
Given that “coercion (by Nifong)” is the less damaging (to the defendant) defense, and thus the more likely to be presented, I think it would be worthwhile to nail that point down in a court of law, in preparation for putting Nifong behind bars.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
This statement is pretty ironic, considering how many black men have either been unjustly imprisoned or literally lynched because a white woman accused them of rape.
[/QUOTE]
So should we not trust any white women who accuse black men of rape in the absence of certain types of evidence? There is no irony in my post. Yes, it sucks, people will get screwed, but in a court of law, the accuser word, is evidence, and sometimes it is the only evidence. We should not devalue the importance of this.
[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
This case is a twisted parody of those cases. Instead of people making racist assumptions about blacks, people made stereotypical assumptions about fraternity jocks. “These are rich white elitist assholes. They must be guilty of something. Let’s git 'em.”
[/QUOTE]
And nobody assumed they were innocent because she was a black stripper? Either way, I don’t see the connection. Are you saying we shouldn’t trust people who accuse others of rape?
[QUOTE=you with the face] brickbacon that’s fallacious reasoning you’re using, unless there’s more context that I’m missing to your statement. Please read the LW thread. My hair turned gray from the amount of sheer stupidity people were using to justify their opinions about this case. Believing any side without the benefit of evidence is wrong. The accuser should not have been believed at face value and neither should the accused. Population-based stats have no bearing on the veracity of an individual claim.
[/QUOTE]
I am not engaging fallacious reasoning. They are distorting what I said in order to pit you and I against on another. I remember the thread in question, and I am on your side. I am sure my statement in this thread was not as clear as it could have been, but I can assure you it don’t think crime stats are an indication of one individual’s veracity.
[QUOTE=catsix]
Crystal Mangum is both a liar and a whore. Applying the term to someone who fucks for money is hardly a ‘sexual double standard’. Lying prostitute, lying hooker, and lying whore are all descriptors that apply to Crystal Mangum.
[/quote]
So you see nothing at all hypocritical about using her sex-oriented occupation as a slur against her character? Or are you just being obtuse for the hell of it?
Yeah, an occupation that deals with sex. You know that if she were in any other business, her occupation would be irrelevant. Your density is amazing.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I am glad that the charges have been dropped. But please, continue to bark untruths.
It would certainly make you look less hypocritical.
Uh huh. Sure it does. Make sure you don’t twist a neuron with the mental gymnastics you got going on there.
She’s either a despical liar who deserves to have the book thrown at her or a sick twisted crackpot who needs to be committed. Her being a stripper or a whore or anything has nothing to do with my assessment, kiddo.
[QUOTE=brickbacon]
Also, cite that there were no injuries and that she gave 5 contradictory statements that night.
[/QUOTE]
Here ya go. From here.
From a staff member at Durham Access, an involuntary detox center, approximately 1:40 AM.
From Durham Police Sgt. J.C. Shelton, 2:31 AM.
From Sgt. Shelton’s report, 2:45 AM.
2:50 AM. Mangum tells he S.A.N.E. nurse-in-training that she was not choked.
.
She tells the nurse that “Nikki” (Kim Roberts) assisted in the rape and stole her money.
3:14 AM
From the Probable Cause Affidavit dated March 27, 2006:
That’s at least five different stories. I think in the end there eleven or more. As to her injuries –
So she was choked, but she wasn’t, and she was hit, but she wasn’t, she was raped, but she wasn’t, She was strangled, but she wasn’t, Roberts assisted the players, no she didn’t …
If necessary, I can dig up cites for the ever changing number of participants in the rape, from 0, to 20, to 5, to 4, and to 3. Hell, that’s five versions right there.
This is totally an off topic question, but what happens to the prosecutors and witnesses when they release a wrongly convicted person that’s been in prison for 25 years based on DNA?
Do they investigate or ever press charges against people? I know people have sued but wouldn’t trying the person sometimes be criminal? I say sometimes because I don’t think the prosecutors always do it in bad faith. Just curious.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Because you have some previous personal experience with Nifong that made that reasonable?
[/QUOTE]
This is a ridiculous question coming from you, Bricker, a man who continued to support the president long after evidence came out that he’s a lying liar.
No I have no personal experience with Nifong. That’s exactly why I didn’t assume that he’s an unethical bastard without having evidence of that fact. Since when did this become such an unreasonable position that it has to be explained to a lawyer?