Ah, the old “Oh, sorry I’m spinning paranoid fantasies about how you’re a sexist, but it’s not because I’m lying. It’s just because I can’t accurately perceive or remember reality.”
Good times, good times.
By the way, of course Villa is again lying about why I’ve said he’s a pathological liar. I’ve pointed out before that the fact that he evidently can’t post to me anymore without lying is what makes him a pathological liar. That (he says) he’s just unable to remember reality and instead prefers paranoia about sexists out to get him does not mean it was unreasonable to assume that someone constantly given to lying was lying about “remembering” something.
Nor does it address his lie of omission that even in the other thread where I thought he was a woman, I pointed out that he’s dangerously unstable.
So you admit that you don’t really have a leg to stand on as regards the element of force and the definition of rape, right? We can put that one to bed?
If by “don’t have a leg to stand on” you mean “proven that Villa is an ignorant babbling idiot again and again who cannot stop lying, sees nefarious actions behind every corner and refuses to admit even simple errors.” then yes. Otherwise, not so much.
I’ve cited that NY state definition that proves that forcible compulsion of sexual activity, on its own, is enough to prove rape. Villa has repeatedly lied about this, God knows why, he could have just said “whoops, I was wrong.” It’s not that bad that he didn’t know the law in all of the states, but even admitting that tiny bit of fault is evidently utterly beyond him. Even his recent ‘legal proof’ is more of his relentless and habitual dishonesty, because he’s a pathological liar. Just like he keeps pretending that “a cite that they can read for themselves to see if you’ve actually describing it” in an online forum, as I explained to him in the original thread and something like four or five times now in this thread, was not a claim that he provided no cite at all, but that people would have to hunt down hardcopy and type it all out by hand in order to discuss it, and thus it was not something that people “can read for themselves”. But Villa evidently can no longer post without lying, so simply saying “yeah, I did go berserk simply because you asked for a link, and I did get really strangely rage-fueled paranoid and alleged that you quoted and linked to my post in an attempt to hide its contents, and yeah it is difficult to discuss a cite that’s only in hardcopy and that people would have to type out by hand in order to discuss. Here’s a link.” Instead we get hysterical shrieking about “You said I didn’t provide a cite!!!”
Likewise, he’s lying about how the definition of using force or the threat of force (in NY) doesn’t involve consent. In fact, NY’s law explicitly states that lack of consent automatically results from compelling someone to have sex through physical force or the threat of force. Compelling someone physically, or through the threat of physical action, is in and of itself proof that consent was not obtained, under NY law. His bizarre repetition of the fact that it’s (allegedly) different in New Jersey is just part of his antics. It’s a bit like someone saying that something is legal in Sweden, and someone else claiming that’s false because in Germany it’s totally different. I see he’s now brought up Pennsylvania too.
Just as his example was the type of pathological dishonesty that is quickly becoming his hallmark. His claim was that “In the state of New York, a man pins a girl down to a bed, slaps her repeatedly, and sexually penetrates her. According to your definition, this is rape. However, according to the law, it isn’t if she has consented to it.”
He is, naturally, a pathological liar and simply making shit up about my definition. If someone only read Villa’s lies, they might think it was. That would not be rape according to my definition, because Villa can’t tell the truth when it would mean admitting that he’s wrong. My actual definition was “Rape would be the use of force, or the threat of force to obtain anal, oral or vaginal penetration.” In his example force was not being used to obtain sex. Consent was used to obtain sex, as he admits. Force was being used in a bit of roleplaying. This simply shows, yet again, that Villa is constitutionally incapable of honesty if it means admitting that he’s wrong.
Using force or the threat of force to obtain sex is rape under NY law. Using force or the threat of force to obtain sex is, in and of itself, proof that the victim did not consent, under NY law. Using consent to obtain sex and agreeing to some bondage/roleplay/whatever is, rather obviously, not using force to obtain sex. That’s what “she consented to it” fucking means, you weren’t using force to make her have sex, you were using her consent to the sexual act and agreement to roleplay in order to have sex that included roleplaying.
Your posts are my cite. Go to ANY thread on Islam and you will be chiming in with your racist comments about how we need to look at every fucking muslim in the country to make sure we don’t miss a radical one.
My search fu is weak but that has been your position.
You’ve also said that the reason muslims are so fucking terroristy is because there is something about the Quran that makes them all terroristy and barbaric and I said if THAT was true then we would have seen higher violence and barbarism coming from muslims than other religions throughout history and that has just not been the case until about 1948.
Now if you want to take any of that stuff back, then fine but your said those things repeatedly.
As horrible a person as Finn is, at least I can understand the roots of his paranoia about assaults on Israel. He thinks that Israel will be instrumental to preventing another Holocaust some day and to that end, he just doesn’t give a shit what he has to say or how he has to rationalize right wing zionism. And if that means shitting on Palestinians and accusing a few people of anti-semitism (or imply they are anti-semites), well, thats just a sacrifice he’s willing to make (didn’t want to ENTIRELY derail this pitting).
But YOU, sitting in the bosom of the greatest army ever known to man are pissing your pants because you think that 9/11 was more significant than anything that has happened in the last 60 years (I think you later admitted that Vietnam was worse, I forget if you also corrected yourself re: computers and the internet) and we simply must investigate every muslim (I see no other way of ruling them out if you don’t investigate them) to see if they are terrorists.
Aside from the usual litany of accusations of “habitual dishonesty” “the only reason you don’t like me is because I am so right and you are so wrong” and most amusingly his painting a picture of OTHER people foaming at the mouth as they type their posts, I think that you can consent to assault in every state. Its how surgeons can operate on you and if you thik thats a special situation, there is a club in NYC called Paddles where I am pretty sure you can consent to assault and other neat things.
Only Damuri could use the word “paranoia” to mean “proven facts”.
Let’s go back to his own words, shall we?
Here, Damuri is just lying as fast as he can type. Not only have I never said that Israel will prevent another Holocaust, but I’ve gone on record saying that the US should cut off all aid to Israel if they don’t suspend all settlement growth, both ‘organic’ and expansionist. Rather obviously, this is not Likud’s position.
Equally obviously, Damuri uses the word “Zionism” as a slur and has no clue what it means. Talking about “right wing Zionism” is a bit like talking about “right Wing Europeism”. Zionism was the belief that the Jews should have self determination. It was decided six decades ago.
More lies.
-Damuri constantly lies and claims that I’ve said or “implied” that he’s an anti-Semite. He can never quote that accusation or implication though, and has in fact changed his lie from how I “shouted him down with accusations of anti-semitism” to how, really, it was just a subtle hint. And again Damuri is the one fuck stupid enough to allege, in this thread of all places, that I’m coy and don’t really say what’s on my mind.
-The people I’ve accused of anti-Semitism, all two of them in this thread, are actual anti-Semites. Funny, that.
-I’ve never claimed that anybody should be “shitting on” the Palestinians. In fact, I’ve stated explicitly that in addition to immediately halting all settlement expansion, the Israeli government should endeavor to have a functional, prosperous state in the West Bank in order to demonstrate the profits of peaceful coexistance and serve as a ‘carrot’ rather than a stick. I’ve also repeatedly stated that the Palestinians deserve a viable state with equitable water, agricultural and territorial rights and a viable economy.
And Damuri tells all these lies, simply, because I’ve pointed out that he’s ignorant and holds forth on the topic to sell an agenda without bothering to find out wtf he’s talking about first, and dishonestly refusing to accept corrections once they’re provided.
Oh, and:
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:585, topic:572787”]
OTHER people foaming at the mouth as they type their posts/QUOTE]
Not only is Villa obvious a frothing at the mouth lunatic (an actual one) but Damuri calls factual refutations “frothing” because, like the rest of his idiot coterie, they have no factual refutations and have to pretend that being proven wrong on the facts is crazy.
And you can see below Villa again frothing about “gnashing of teeth”. The above, it seems to him, is “gnashing teeth”.
I would be very surprised in NY, seeing as there have been prosecutions for assault for spanking with a wooden spoon. At least I think it was in New York State, though I could be wrong there. If you have Hein Online, which I don’t any more, there’s a good discussion on this in the article by Monica Pa. Beyond the Pleasure Principle: The Criminalization of Consensual Sadomasochistic Sex, 11 Tex. J. Women & L. 51, 56 (2001). I’m sorry that’s a cite not a link, and by giving it I assume I am going to give cause to more wailing and gnashing of teeth from lil Finny.
I could be wrong as I am speaking from memory here, and I’d certainly agree it probably isn’t as clear cut as I initially made it out to be, but the position of consensual S&M in many states is very shaky indeed.
Are you really this dumb? Look back at the order this happened. You made a claim about the definition of rape. I said it was wrong. You cited to California and New York. Those are the correct definitions of rape in those states, but, and here is the key, don’t support your initial definition. Instead they support mine. Your initial comment included forcible, but not compulsion. You continue to make the mistake of assuming that forcible includes compulsion. It doesn’t. You simply don’t understand what the law means when it talks about force, and you are using a lay definition. It’s a term of art here (assuming you know what one of those is).
Well, let’s face it sparky, you did say I didn’t provide a cite.
I really thought I was being helpful to you by bringing in NJ. It makes it pretty clear why force isn’t what you think it is, but instead is a legal term of art. It shows you why you need both elements.
Can you please provide a definition of force that is legally accurate here? You admit “force was being used.” That satisfies the forcible element. According to you that is the only element. This is getting more than a little frustrating because you carry on bringing lay definitions into a legal discussion. I fully accept that, in the lay sense of “force” you are right. But that’s not the legal sense.
Can I please have a cite to this? A law that says forcible compulsion isn’t a cite to this. It doesn’t have to be a link - a case cite will be sufficient.
Can I please have a cite to this? A law that says forcible compulsion isn’t a cite to this. It doesn’t have to be a link - a case cite will be sufficient.
Can I please have a cite to this? A law that says forcible compulsion isn’t a cite to this. It doesn’t have to be a link - a case cite will be sufficient. Force simply refers to the physical actions of sex here ( the threat of force situations, by the way, are somewhat different).
Can I please have a cite to this? A law that says forcible compulsion isn’t a cite to this. It doesn’t have to be a link - a case cite will be sufficient.
Nope, an honest to God admission I made a mistake. I genuinely thought you hadn’t called me hysterical since. I think you are a sexist, and I think you have demonstrated that, but I was wrong you hadn’t called me hysterical.
Not everyone has perfect recall. It was an honest mistake. To do it deliberately would have been ridiculous seeing as how simple it would be to demonstrate you had called me it. Hell, it was simple enough you could do it.
When I am wrong, I am willing to admit it. I was wrong there. And you seem to build up in your head there was nefarious intent behind it. Kind of amusing given the frothing accusations you throw out at anyone who disagrees with you.
I think I see where the difficulty is arising. The above is all true.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Using force or the threat of force to obtain sex is rape under NY law. Using force or the threat of force to obtain sex is, in and of itself, proof that the victim did not consent, under NY law.
[/QUOTE]
This part, though, is not. There is a distinction to be drawn: forcible compulsion of somebody to have sex means there’s no consent under New York Penal Code § 130.05:
2. Lack of consent results from:
(a) Forcible compulsion; or
(b) Incapacity to consent; or
(c) Where the offense charged is sexual abuse or forcible touching,
any circumstances, in addition to forcible compulsion or incapacity to
consent, in which the victim does not expressly or impliedly acquiesce
in the actor's conduct; or
(d) Where the offense charged is rape in the third degree as defined
in subdivision three of section 130.25, or criminal sexual act in the
third degree as defined in subdivision three of section 130.40, in
addition to forcible compulsion, circumstances under which, at the time
of the act of intercourse, oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct,
the victim clearly expressed that he or she did not consent to engage in
such act, and a reasonable person in the actor's situation would have
understood such person's words and acts as an expression of lack of
consent to such act under all the circumstances.
But note that simply using force is different from forcible compulsion, which is defined in § 130.00:
8. "Forcible compulsion" means to compel by either:
a. use of physical force; or
b. a threat, express or implied, which places a person in fear of
immediate death or physical injury to himself, herself or another
person, or in fear that he, she or another person will immediately be
kidnapped.
In lawyer-speak, the fact that there are two elements there (compel by … force) means that each part must mean something different. So just using force is different from compelling by force. Because of the way these statutes are interpreted by judges, the “compulsion” part is read to mean that it’s done in a way that prevents consent. When something is compelled by force, or a particular kind of threat of force, there’s no consent by definition. But just using force doesn’t mean forcible compulsion.
That’s, I think, where the example of the dude pinning the girl down comes from. I of course believe you that under your own personal definition of rape, the fact that there’s consent to it means that the sex wasn’t obtained by force. But that’s certainly not how a court would read the statute if it was written the way you had written it, and I think that’s what villa is arguing about. Forcible compulsion means something more than just force; therefore, by necessity, if all you have is force, there’s something else out there that needs to be proven before you can say there was a rape because of forcible compulsion.
And I think this borders on a hijack, if that’s possible at this point, but I would argue that getting back to the original point there, this is a great demonstration of why a gradated statutory approach to sexual assault (and related statistics) makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of different ways for an intersection of force and sex to be bad, and whether or not a certain statutory definition is arguably met, there is real benefit to be derived from finding out what happened when a person says he or she has been assaulted.
That was my point from the word go. I maintained that it was using force to obtain sex that was at issue and which showed that consent wasn’t being given, not the simple use of force. It’s the difference between obtaining sex by consent and then simply involving force in sex (say, consensual rough sex) and obtaining sex by physically forcing someone into it.
I know. That’s why I defined it as obtaining sex by force and not obtaining sex by consent and having forceful sex.
I know, that’s why I didn’t say “sex that involves force” but “using force to obtain sex.”
No, using force isn’t as long as the sex is obtained by consent. But using force or the threat of force in order to obtain sex does mean that you’re compelling someone by the use or threat of force.
Surely you see the difference between sex obtained by force, and sex obtained by consent, right?
It’s the difference between your girlfriend saying “I love it when you tie me up. Go get the silk scarves and have your way with me” and grabbing someone and taping them with duct tape, and having your way with them. It’s the difference between sex that’s obtained by consent and involves force, and sex that’s obtained by force.
Obtaining sex by force means that you’re compelling them through the use of force, and that fits the definition for forcible compulsion and the violation of consent.
Of course. My point all along was that the statistical reporting has to be broken down into categories as specific as possible. A large part of the problem was that the NSCV was including, as per their own definition “non-violent embracing” in the same category as gang rape. The more specificity the better.
HA! So you tried to search for something that I said that supported your claim—that I want “every Muslim in America investigated”—couldn’t find squat, and you then conclude that the problem is that your searching skills are weak. THAT IS SOME FUNNY SHIT! Sad shit, too.
You know what really is weak? You. You throw out bullshit you can’t back up, then when asked to support it with quotes from me, you invent something so weak it could become its own meme: “Your posts are my site.” :rolleyes: Well, you dishonest piece of shit, if there are cites in my posts that support your imaginary allegation, serve it up. With a nice slice of humble pie. Oh wait, that would require some backbone and character on your part. But feel free to try again. Here is your original bullshit claim from Post 437:
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
Magellan, it is beyond clear that your position is that we should investigate ALL muslims to see if they warrant even FURTHER investigation. Your position has been that “muslimness should be the first filter”
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Oh, really? Well then I’ll ask you to point to where in all my posts on this subject I even once said that we should investigate all Muslims. Let me save you all the search time. It doesn’t exist. It doesn’t exist because I didn’t say it. And I didn’t say it because that is NOT my position.
[/QUOTE]
So, I’ve told you, explicitly, that what you claimed is not my position. I even went on to explain what my position is. But you don’t find that “beyond clear”. Odd. I asked you to find something in all my posts that make it “beyond clear” in your pimple of a head that I want all Muslims investigated. Some string of words that, you know, “say that”. Surely, with all I’ve posted on the subject you should be able to find a sentence or two. I must have uttered those words or similar once or twice. After all, according to you, that’s my position, right. And it’s “beyond clear”. :rolleyes:
So, MAN THE FUCK UP, slime ball.
Or not. I’m come to not be surprised when a hyena refuses to change his spots.
To be honest, I don’t know the content and have never really read any of your threads on Islamic radicalism because I’ve generally discussed the subject enough in its Middle Eastern context, but it’s a pretty good bet that if Damuri is making a claim about you, that it’s false. As Dopers go, he’s somewhat more intelligent than Gonzomax and somewhat less intelligent than Elv1s (I know, not a huge spectrum, but still). He is either a very dishonest person, or can’t differentiate his dreams from reality. I’m still waiting for even vague proof about how I “shouted him down as an anti-Semite” or “coyly hinted that he’s an anti-Semite” (let alone what possible honest reason he could have for claiming that what he first thought was being ‘shouted down’ was really a coy suggestion) because, in this thread, I’ve already cited the only implication he claimed existed… and it was simply a comment on how he was arguing for a particular narrative in GD. Not exactly a clarion accusation of racial bias.
But as he’s admitted that he’s a bigot against the nation of Israel (rather than the Jewish people, who I haven’t see him having any problems with), I think he tends to project his bigotry onto other people. After all, he still refuses to take any personal responsibility, at all, and claims that I control his mind and made him a bigot. I’m sure you can see how, when dealing with someone like that, their claims are more indicative of their mindset than yours.
P.S. He’s previously stated that he thinks that there’s something freakish about the ability to search the board and use "control-F’ in a thread once you’ve identified its topic, if you want to look up a specific person’s comments. IIRC his nonsense was something about how it must take hours to find comments that you’re looking for. That coupled with his inability to multiquote or do research beyond Wikipedia suggests that he’s simply not particularly good at this whole ‘using the internet’ thing, so you might not want to take it too personally. He’s just incompetent.
Ha. I was just browsing some threads and came across this (emphasis mine):
So, it appears that Dadouchi Ajashi does indeed know how a debate works. And will even attempt to lecture others on it. But for himself? No, different rules apply.
At least now his dishonesty and lack of character have been revealed and are beyond clear.
Feel free to reread those threads I’ve participated in. More to the point, I do find it interesting that in two recent threads where I’ve called on a poster to be honest and take responsibility for mistakes they’ve made, or lies they’ve put forth, you participated but felt no compunction to encourage them to do the decent thing. But in another thread from a week or two ago, you were very interested in seeing if and how I might handle things when it was pointed out me that I was in error.
I’m sorry if I didn’t adequately police a thread we were involved in and chastise anyone found in error. I hope that you will support my election to Super Mod of Truth when the time comes, so that I may more effectively meet your expectations.
Well, maybe its illegal but There was a place called the Vault back in the day where I’m pretty sure there was some S&M stuff going on. It wasn’t a secret, maybe the cops just didn’t feel like busting a bunch of people in assless chaps.
Forget “police”, I’m talking “participate”. Look at this example right now. You felt the need to put your two cents in, but—and here’s the rally shocking part—not in a way that lines up with the two other recent times I mentioned. Why, because it might help me and damage someone that tends to agree with you more.
Like I said, shocking!
Congratulations, you have that dumb, dishonest piece of shit on your side.