# In my humble opinion, this is the biggest crock of shit I've ever heard of **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 19, 2006, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827 "2006-12-19T20:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Wee\_Bairn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/90db22/32.png) [@Wee\_Bairn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wee_Bairn)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2006, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/141 "2006-12-21T20:48:55Z")
Hmm…makes sense actually. The Bible is pretty popular in Georgia, and I believe it says in there somewhere that sex that can’t result in offspring is an abomination or something. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/142 "2006-12-22T03:17:36Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] > [@ambushed](#): > > I do not believe that the girls (or the boys) were victims, automatically or otherwise. **That was my very point!** Then why even bother to use the phrase ‘blaming the victim’. It could very easily be interpreted as your concession that these girls were victims. [/quote] Only by the _severely_ comprehension-impaired. Why do you keep taking everything out of context? Not only my original post, but my subsequent response to you? (I’ll expand presently). Then, you write: [QUOTE=catsix] The only reason I can think to attempt a pre-emptive defense on such grounds is if you _are_ stipulating that these girls were victims. I don’t see why you said it, otherwise. It does nothing to bolster your argument at all. I could tell from the rest of your post which side you’re on, I just think _that section of it_ hurts your cause. [/quote] You seem not to have a very good understanding the subtleties of debate. It is wise when responding to the opposing side to customize your responses to reflect what _they_ might believe and think (even, or especially, when _you_ don’t share those beliefs yourself) and anticipate how _they_ might respond and what _they_ may try to rebut. It’s called forensics, and I suggest you look into it. For example, I (a soft atheist and skeptic even that Jesus was a historical figure) was once in a debate with a more or less literalist Christian who kept quoting from the Bible. To counter many of her arguments, I cited chapter and verse from the New Testament and statements attributed to Jesus which contradicted her arguments. But she, something like you here, thought she had a big “aha!”, an absolutely final, crushing rebuttal. She wrote: “But you don’t even believe in Jesus or the New Testament, so your arguments are worthless!” Do I really have to explain what was so laughably wrong with her reply? When your opponents have or are likely to have a certain set of viewpoints or beliefs, the wise debater crafts counter-arguments that anticipate and attempt to forestall _their_ likely responses and counter-counter-arguments. It is stupid to respond only in ways that express your _own_ viewpoints, beliefs, and position, since they obviously don’t share them in the first place! That’s exactly what I did in that section of my post you’re complaining about. Didn’t you see all the quotations from various posters that headed my original post? How on earth could you imagine my reply wasn’t addressed to _them_ and _their_ views? I realized that in _their_ minds, they thought the girls were victims and that the section of the _Atlanta_ magazine I quoted would have looked to _them_ as if I were “blaming the victims”. So I wisely anticipated this reaction and took steps to deflect that probable reaction. The section you’re complaining about was the result. It was by far the right thing for me to say. You continue your naive and totally off-base kvetching: [QUOTE=catsix] Again I think it’s a case of the words you used hurting your argument. It’s ‘base behavior’ to have sex with drunk girls except in this case? Why bring up ‘base behavior’ at all if what you’re trying to say (and it’s clear that you are trying to say) is that these girls were there as willing and knowing participants in the events of that particular New Year’s Eve. [/quote] ::: Sigh ::: I don’t think I’ve ever encountered such extreme, out-of-all-proportion stubbornness in willful miscomprehension and misinterpretation! First, are you denying that it’s base (“without estimable personal qualities”) behavior to have sex with incapacitated or significantly reduced-capacity partners? And wasn’t Michelle an “incapacitated or significantly reduced-capacity” partner? After all, she’d been drinking all day and all night. Where the holy **fuck** did you come up with the fantasy that I ever claimed that that it wasn’t base in that specific instance, **which I explicitly stated WAS the case**? Why do you keep pretending I said things not only that I never said, but the exact _opposite_ of what I said? I “brought up” base behavior because it undeniably existed in the case of Michelle. Note that “base” in no way implies “criminal”. The fact that the girls knew and wanted to do what they were doing **in no way** makes having sex with a seriously drunk girl any less base (“without estimable personal qualities”). I’ll be happy to elaborate the obvious again, if you wish. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/143 "2006-12-22T03:31:05Z")
> [@](#): > > **ambushed** said: > I realized that in their minds, they thought the girls were victims and that the section of the Atlanta magazine I quoted would have looked to them as if I were “blaming the victims”. So I wisely anticipated this reaction and took steps to deflect that probable reaction. The section you’re complaining about was the result. It was by far the right thing for me to say. So you play right into the hands of Aangavert over there. Good job. I’ll try to remember your tactics the next time I debate some pro-lifer who thinks I’m a baby killer and just go right ahead and self-apply the label so I can ‘deflect their reaction’. I find it hard to ‘deflect a reaction’ when the person I’m arguing against thinks _I’m on their side._ > [@](#): > > I “brought up” base behavior because it undeniably existed in the case of Michelle. Note that “base” in no way implies “criminal”. The fact that the girls knew and wanted to do what they were doing in no way makes having sex with a seriously drunk girl any less base (“without estimable personal qualities”). Then I totally disagree with you on this point, since I don’t think it’s ‘base’ at all. I think there’s nothing wrong with having sex with a drunk chick (or dude) who specifically intended to get crocked off their ass and fuck your brains out! Please, don’t explain anything to me. I have no further interest in you or what you have to say. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/144 "2006-12-22T03:37:40Z")
[QUOTE=Mtgman] > [@Random](#): > > Certainly, I agree that the legislature did a poor job in drafting the original law. And, assuming it had the power, in failing to make the amendment to the law retroactive. (There_s been some suggestion that the state constitution barred it from doing so, which strikes me as unlikely where the amendment works in favor of potential defendants, but I can_t rule that out without research.) I don’t think I had heard that. I would be suprised if that were the case myself because one of the quotes I saw from the appelate court justice was that because the legislature **hadn’t** made it retroactive, Genarlow would have to stay in jail. Nothing about how they **couldn’t** , just how they **hadn’t**.I’m not interested enough in this case to sit through watching minors having sex on videotape, but I see your point. [/quote] Gentlepersons, I quote again from the _New York Times_ article: > [@](#): > > The problem with that argument, legislators on the judicial committee said in interviews Monday, is that **the State Constitution prohibits retroactive laws.** (empasis mine) ( **Random** , is your keyboard broken or something? Why do you keep using an asterisk (\*) in place of the single quote/possessive mark (')?) ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/145 "2006-12-22T03:55:35Z")
[QUOTE=catsix] So you play right into the hands of Aangavert over there. Good job. I’ll try to remember your tactics the next time I debate some pro-lifer who thinks I’m a baby killer and just go right ahead and self-apply the label so I can ‘deflect their reaction’. I find it hard to ‘deflect a reaction’ when the person I’m arguing against thinks _I’m on their side._ [/quote] You are an astonishingly **STUPID** fuckwit, you miserable fucking asshat! Your ignorance knows no bounds. You’re obviously an anencephalitic infant. [QUOTE=catsix] Then I totally disagree with you on this point, since I don’t think it’s ‘base’ at all. I think there’s nothing wrong with having sex with a drunk chick (or dude) who specifically intended to get crocked off their ass and fuck your brains out! [/quote] Got it. You think everyone who fucks incapacitated partners – who by definition can’t adequately express any refusal or change of heart – is deserving of high esteem and is worthy of emulation. “Base” doesn’t even _begin_ to describe your obscene, malignant, deeply debauched subhumanity, you sick fuck. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/146 "2006-12-22T04:23:53Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Actually, it’s really _not_ a “good indication,” as your post clearly demonstrates. [/quote] “Good” in that context should be understood as a step up from “poor” and a step or few down from “ideal” or “conclusive”. So yes, it’s a good indication. I chose my words carefully. [QUOTE=mhendo] It’s completely circular. I assumes the very thing that it then tries to demonstrate. It assumes that a troublemaker or criminal is unlikely to be an honor student, and then argues from that position that an honor student is unlikely to be a troublemaker or criminal. [/quote] Nonsense. It does no such thing. You’re playing semantic games. It’s not an “assumption” that honor students are unlikely to be troublemakers or recidivists or previously-uncaught criminals, it’s a product of real-world experience. It’s an empirical observation that allows for good (but not perfect) predictability of future criminality. Just like IQ scores, which allow good predictions of future academic and career success. But, unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped semantic game-players from “arguing” the same thing you did, i.e., that the definition of IQ is circular. Rational people pay them no heed. [QUOTE=mhendo] The number of times we see, in the media, people arguing that someone should be cut a break because he’s an honor student (or athlete, or whatever) suggests that being an honor student is no guarantee against criminal behaviour. [/QUOTE] Okay, now you’re just putting me on. By _definition_, an honor student who is (justifiably, let’s say) charged with a crime _is_ a criminal! Duh! What matters is the observed cumulative experience which tells us that an honor student is _less likely_ to engage in _future_ criminal behavior, and _that’s_ why the deserve a break. That seems pretty obvious to me. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/147 "2006-12-22T04:36:15Z")
Oh look. It’s back. [QUOTE=ambushed] What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, **Random**. Don’t you have a backwoods Georgia community college class to pontificate at or anything? [/quote] Nah. Too busy with the law thing. But maybe you’re right. Community colleges are always looking for people to teach adult illiteracy classes. And you’ve convinced me that there’s quite a need. [QUOTE=ambushed] No one “compared” her to Nazis or slave owners, fuckwit. [/quote] Huh? Oh, yeah. You have a problem with words. Maybe I can help. > [@dictionary.com](#): > > **com·pare** 1. to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations. > 2. to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? In clear references to **Aangelica** , the following comments were made: > [@](#): > > Send in the gestapo. > [@](#): > > It’s already been suggested that Aangelica play Javert. I wonder whether Aangelica believes that those who defied the law and hid the Jews got what they deserved when they were caught. Does she believe that those who ran the Underground Railroad should’ve been punished? > [@](#): > > Well, if those Jew-hiding criminals had written letters to their Nazi legislators, they might have had a moral leg to stand on. As it stands I think Aangelicawill probably have to say they harmed German society. Unity and obedience to authority are the keys to a successful society, after all… Which caused me to respond: > [@Random](#): > > I disagree with much of what Aangelica has said here. > > * * * > > Despite that, I’ve been able to restrain myself from comparing her to Nazis and slaveowners. > > * * * > > In other words, posts that boil down to “I disagree with the result! It’s too harsh! And I think blowjobs between (among?) consenting 15 year-olds should be legal! If you disagree, that means you’d support Nazi prosecutions!” fail to impress. Instead, try suggesting a change in the system that shows that you’ve given 15 seconds of thought to possible negative consequences of what you are advocating. Wanna read that definition again? It_s okay. I_ll wait. Any synapses firing yet? No? Well, let\*s move on, then. [QUOTE=ambushed] As for “who is to blame”, I don’t recall any particular blaming of the appellate court. [/QUOTE] Sigh. We have much work ahead of us, don\*t we? Here, let_s start with a look at the OP, which quotes an news article that reports last Friday_s ruling by the Supreme Court of Georgia, a result that the OP condemns, making a further reference to the appellate process. That\*s where this whole thread started. (supreme courts are a kind of appellate court, ambushed. Need a cite for that?) Then in post 34, you vaguely cricriticize “the Georgia courts” and complain about how they interpreted the law. In another post, you say > [@](#): > > It seems to me that in this case, the problem’s more with the state supreme court… There are others. Need more, or do you now recall the fact that some people (I count you are a person, despite your limited cognitive skills) complained about appellate courts? ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/148 "2006-12-22T04:49:55Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] Gentlepersons, I quote again from the _New York Times_ article… [/quote] Yes. That_s the suggestion I referred to earlier. As I said before, I question the legal interpretation of the legislator. This is based upon general legal knowledge of how prohibitions on ex post facto laws work. My doubts as to the legislator_s legal analysis are somewhat strengthened by other reports, also cited in this thread, that the appellate court said or implied that the legislature did have the power to change the law to ameliorate the impact on pending cases. As I also said before, to fully evaluate this claim, I would have to spend time researching Georgia law, which (again, as I already said), I don\*t have the time to do. Do try to keep up. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/149 "2006-12-22T04:52:32Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] You seem not to have a very good understanding the subtleties of debate. [QUOTE] Heh. Funny. ---
**Author:** ![42Geek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/6bbea6/32.png) [@42Geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42Geek)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/150 "2006-12-22T05:03:03Z")
Ambushed, so you think that a person in a relationship or a drunk/high person can’t be raped? I CAN read…and I really think this might have been yet another case of dumbass Jock “yah dude” self entitlement. I still say that what caused this case was a “frat boy big Pimp daddy mindless party” mentality. I agree…it’s racist…any white boy would have been given a slap on the wrist. I think the guy is being punished more for being a dumbass party boy, then for any alleged rape. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/151 "2006-12-22T05:03:45Z")
[QUOTE=Random] Oh look. It’s back. Nah. Too busy with the law thing. But maybe you’re right. Community colleges are always looking for people to teach adult illiteracy classes. And you’ve convinced me that there’s quite a need. Huh? Oh, yeah. You have a problem with words. Maybe I can help. In clear references to **Aangelica** , the following comments were made: Which caused me to respond: Wanna read that definition again? It_s okay. I_ll wait. Any synapses firing yet? No? Well, let\*s move on, then. Sigh. We have much work ahead of us, don\*t we? Here, let_s start with a look at the OP, which quotes an news article that reports last Friday_s ruling by the Supreme Court of Georgia, a result that the OP condemns, making a further reference to the appellate process. That\*s where this whole thread started. (supreme courts are a kind of appellate court, ambushed. Need a cite for that?) Then in post 34, you vaguely cricriticize “the Georgia courts” and complain about how they interpreted the law. In another post, you say There are others. Need more, or do you now recall the fact that some people (I count you are a person, despite your limited cognitive skills) complained about appellate courts? [/QUOTE] Thank you for confirming that my low opinion of you and your views is perfectly justified. What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, **Random**. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/152 "2006-12-22T05:18:26Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] Thank you for confirming that my low opinion of you and your views is perfectly justified. What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, **Random**. [/QUOTE] No, I didn_t think you_d have much of a response. Loudmouth blowhards like you rely on shouting opposition down, but even a halfway competent review of what you say shows that your characterizations of what others have said here are untrue and worthless. Any more insults? Maybe a few people won\*t look behind the curtain. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/153 "2006-12-22T05:19:52Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] That site is no cite. Less homonymously, [dumblaws.com](http://dumblaws.com) is not remarkable for their careful research. Most of their claims do not provide any citation to the actual law in question and cannot be verified by a review of the actual penal code involved. Sorry. You want to claim that dumb laws exist, go right ahead. But don’t point to [dumblaws.com](http://dumblaws.com). That’s just dumb. [/QUOTE] In lieu of a “sheesh!”, I’ll just remind you of **Mtgman** ’s apt reply to your flawed and off-point observations. If you had read and understood the context of **Mellivora capensis** ’s post, you would have realized that his/her reference to a “smiley” suggested that I had merely made some or all of these things up out of whole cloth; that they were _my_ idea of a joke. To make it clear that I did not invent them myself, there was zero call to provide chapter and verse of the relevant statutes. All I needed to do was to demonstrate that **I** did not make them up. There was no need to provide links to the relevant penal codes. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/154 "2006-12-22T05:21:41Z")
[QUOTE=Random] No, I didn_t think you_d have much of a response. Loudmouth blowhards like you rely on shouting opposition down, but even a halfway competent review of what you say shows that your characterizations of what others have said here are untrue and worthless. Any more insults? Maybe a few people won\*t look behind the curtain. [/QUOTE] What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, **Random**. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/155 "2006-12-22T05:23:48Z")
And you\*re funny. Like a clown. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/156 "2006-12-22T05:32:51Z")
[QUOTE=Random] Yes. That\*s the suggestion I referred to earlier. As I said before, I question the legal interpretation of the legislator. [/quote] It was not “the legislator”, it was the State Congressional Judicial Committee. Do try to keep up. I tend to give more credit to statements from a Congressional Judicial Committee discussing their own Constitution than to an pedantic, sanctimonious hack such as yourself. I guess I’m just silly that way. ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/157 "2006-12-22T05:34:12Z")
[QUOTE=Random] And you\*re funny. Like a clown. [/QUOTE] Well, I’d say that’s much better than being a pompous, sanctimonious ass, but that’s just me. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/158 "2006-12-22T05:46:43Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] It was not “the legislator”, it was the State Congressional Judicial Committee. [/QUOTE] You\*re just not much of a challenge, are you? You said: > [@](#): > > The problem with that argument, **legislators** on the judicial committee said in interviews Monday, is that the State Constitution prohibits retroactive laws. (emphasis added) As you said before (but quickly forgot, apparently) congressional committees are made up of legislators. Do you believe everything that politicians tell you, when they are running for cover? Even politicians with the demonstrated brilliance here? I know you have a memory problem, but these are the same guys who you\*ve condemned for creating this problem in the first place. Are these guys wise legal scholars, or not? (You only get to pick one.) ---
**Author:** ![ambushed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3bc359/32.png) [@ambushed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ambushed)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/159 "2006-12-22T05:49:26Z")
[QUOTE=42Geek] Ambushed, so you think that a person in a relationship or a drunk/high person can’t be raped? [/quote] Where the holy fuck did you get _that_ from? I claimed no such thing! What I _said_ is that the jury found no grounds for a rape conviction in that particular instance, therefore there was no rape, statutory or otherwise. [QUOTE=42Geek] I CAN read…and I really think this might have been yet another case of dumbass Jock “yah dude” self entitlement. I still say that what caused this case was a “frat boy big Pimp daddy mindless party” mentality. [/quote] You’re certainly entitled to your manifestly false opinion, but if you had comprehended what I requested you to read you would have grasped that such could not be the case since the girls knew exactly what was going to happen and they even _planned_ for it. They _wanted_ to have sex with these guys! That completely belies your absurd “self-entitlement” and your absurd “frat boy big Pimp daddy” theories of the case. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2006, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827/160 "2006-12-22T06:03:34Z")
[QUOTE=ambushed] I tend to give more credit to statements from a Congressional Judicial Committee discussing their own Constitution than to an pedantic, sanctimonious hack such as yourself. I guess I’m just silly that way. [/QUOTE] Apparently, the Georgia Supreme Court agrees with me (despite my status as a pedantic, sanctimonious hack who annoyingly keeps on pointing out your various stupidities) and disagrees with the constitutional analysis of your scurrying politicians: > [@](#): > > In a concurring opinion, Presiding Justice Carol W. Hunstein points out that > “in 2006, the Legislature amended OCGA § 16-6-4 to provide, inter alia, that > aggravated child molestation involving an act of sodomy is only a misdemeanor > when the victim is between 13 and 16 years of age and the convicted person is 18 > years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim.” > However, **“the Legislature expressly chose not to allow the provisions of the newamendments to affect persons convicted under the previous version of the statute.”** “ > In concurring with the denial of Wilson’s motion for reconsideration, > Presiding Justice Hunstein also notes that “while I am very sympathetic to > Wilson’s argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man > with good grades and no criminal history to ten years in prison without parole and > a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral > sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior, **“this Court is bound by theLegislature’s determination that young persons in Wilson’s situation are not > entitled to the misdemeanor treatment now accorded to identical behavior.”** under OCGA § 16-6-4 (d) (2).” [http://www.gasupreme.us/op\_summaries/Dec\_15\_ops.pdf](http://www.gasupreme.us/op_summaries/Dec_15_ops.pdf) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-my-humble-opinion-this-is-the-biggest-crock-of-shit-ive-ever-heard-of/384827.md?page=9)