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.
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:
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:
::: 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.
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.
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.
Gentlepersons, I quote again from the New York Times article:
(Random, is your keyboard broken or something? Why do you keep using an asterisk (*) in place of the single quote/possessive mark (’)?)
You are an astonishingly STUPID fuckwit, you miserable fucking asshat! Your ignorance knows no bounds. You’re obviously an anencephalitic infant.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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? Its okay. Ill wait.
Any synapses firing yet? No? Well, let*s move on, then.
Sigh. We have much work ahead of us, don*t we?
Here, lets start with a look at the OP, which quotes an news article that reports last Fridays 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?
Yes. Thats 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 legislators 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.
[QUOTE=ambushed]
You seem not to have a very good understanding the subtleties of debate.
[QUOTE]
Heh. Funny.
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.
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.
No, I didnt think youd 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.
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.
What a pedantic, pompous, sanctimonious ass you are, Random.
And you*re funny. Like a clown.
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.
Well, I’d say that’s much better than being a pompous, sanctimonious ass, but that’s just me.
You*re just not much of a challenge, are you?
You said:
(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.)
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.
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.
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: