In which "Doper" Ellis Dee demonstrates, err, proclaims, his ignorance and/or stupidity

Ben has a major rep around here as a douchebag – walking out on his restaurant tabs, treating staff like shit, demanding free stuff on the base that he will bring THEM more business, etc. He’s been banned from several bars, etc. There was an article that came out right after the rape accusation about it. I have family that’s met the bastard. My cousin J worked as a cook at a bar where Ben came to visit once. He made at least one waitress cry – and the only reason he paid his tab was because they pointed out there was a police car down the street.

And then my cousin C.B.'s wife (C.B. is J’s older brother, BTW) works at a local hospital, and says Ben never came to visit with the rest of the Steelers, no matter how many times they asked for him.

When you keep hearing the same type of stories, over and over and over again, you begin to think, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

(And before anyone pulls the “friend of a cousin’s roommates’ first-grade teacher”, I’m recounting first-hand accounts)

With the slew of threads regarding rape lately, I think we all know how to determine whether Ben is the kind of man who would rape a woman. ZPGZealot???

Actually, don’t even bother doing that either. People feel the need to tack that on at the end because they don’t want to be seen “defending a rapist” right after they defend him. We all know that you don’t like him, your disclaimer is extraneous and makes you look silly, because that’s not what it is all about.

Bricker, we’re not in a court of law, and the newspaper article’s tagline isn’t a commandment. I’ll have any opinion of the fuck that I want.

Now, don’t you have some liberal bias to cry over or some typo that you can ferret out and jerk off to later?

Nice scare quotes around the word Doper in the thread title, implying EllisDee is a marginal one with below average intelligence. That’s simply not true. He has a lot of good input, particularly in the NFL-related threads.

Ben may or may not be a rapist (and remember, this isn’t the first time he’s been accused of this either), but he is a skeevy individual. With a creepy molester beard.

You know, I accept that not everyone is actually interested in fighting ignorance.

But given that your admission amounts to a personal ad inviting ignorance to come over after a night of hard drinking, blindfold you, bend you over the bathroom sink and take you from behind sans lube, I’m still a little surprised that you actually had the stones to post it. To proudly declare that the facts don’t matter at all to you in forming your opinions is such a departure from even the pretense of fighting ignorance that I can’t help but be bemused.

You’re characterization of my use of quotation marks in the title is only correct regarding this issue. He posted the links to the video of the press conference which proves him incorrect, while stating that it proved him correct.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13423263&postcount=47

The D.A. did infact say he couldn’t bring a charge against Roethlisberger without the “victim’s” testimony, but he was talking about the “Furnishing alcohol to a minor” charge, and Ellis Dee was clearly referring to the rape charge.

He later added this interesting post (referring to my post [here](You’re characterization of my use of quotations in the title is only correct regarding this issue. He posted the links to the video of the press conference which proves him incorrect, while stating that it proved him correct.)):

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13424406&postcount=52

So I think my use of quotation marks was apt–in this instance, though I do agree with the rest of your post. I’m much aware of Ellis Dee’s quality of discourse.

Yup, thinking that a person that takes a drunk girl into a bathroom stall, has the door guarded, and then has the girl immediately accuse him of rape, is a rapist, without a trial is admitting to not caring about the truth at all. Exactly the same thing.

If true then why pit him? Why not take him to task within the context of the original thread?

Because we were hijacking the Super Bowl XLV thread and were asked to stop; and it would have ended there but for his similar hijacking of yet another thread after the original admonition; arguing against me obliquely. He persisted, so I gave him a thread where he could freely prove his case without hijacking. Ironically he doesn’t seem too eager to do so, though perhaps he isn’t aware.

Why the Pit? Because I think his inexplicable obstinance regarding this issue deserves it; and it got kind of snippy in the end.

The wicked flee where no man pursueth.

My example involves placing a personal ad saying that you are in search of ignorance, and are asking it to come over after it has had a night of hard drinking. In my example, you are seeking a scenario in which you may experience, fully consensually, a ravishment by ignorance. Adding the idea of rape totally destroys the example, since it depends on your willing – indeed, joyful – acceptance of ignorance’s influence.

But not surprisingly, that very unhealthy affinity towards ignorance has rendered you incapable of understanding the jibe that accuses you of an unhealthy affinity towards ignorance.

That’s some funny shit right there.

What the hell? He didn’t miss anything. He just thinks you’re a dick. And, honestly, you are coming off as one for castigating a guy for making a flipping joke.

Oh, a joke!

I get it! I get humor, n’ stuff.

:rolleyes:

This.

Y’know, Bricker, there’s a court of law, and then there’s the rest of the world. In a court of law, one is appropriately regarded as innocent until proven guilty. The point of this is to prevent people from being incarcerated, fined, etc. when they may not actually be guilty. Guilty people will go free because the evidence isn’t good enough, but that’s a price we all agree is worth paying.

Out here, though, we can reach our own conclusions based on the obvious, even if the evidence isn’t sufficient to take to trial. We know everything but what happened inside that bathroom. The bodyguards refused to let the girl’s sorority sisters anywhere near her - and there was no need for this if she wanted to hang out with Ben; she’d have just waved them away. The Cossacks work for the Czar; the only reason for them to take this tack was if they were getting the message from their boss that this is what they were supposed to do.

And the girl fled into the bathroom - and Ben followed her in there.

Sure, it’s possible that he didn’t rape her in that bathroom. But it would be a silly thing to believe. And there’s really no reason to give him the benefit of the doubt, except of course in a court of law.

You seem to think that the rules that apply in a courtroom should apply everywhere else too. (It isn’t just this thread, not by a long shot.) They don’t, and shouldn’t.

I seem to recall similar sentiments from people defending Crystal Magnum, the accuser who claimed she was raped by members of the Duke lacrosse team.

Good thing we rushed to judgment there, huh?

Y’know, the actual legal system wrongly imprisons a fair number of people. And its mistakes have consequences - like the aforementioned wrongful imprisonment.

It’s unfortunate when public opinion gets it wrong. But maybe you ought to fix the real courts before you jump all over the occasional goof by the court of public opinion.

We’re not allowed to complain about small-scale ignorance unless we’ve already fixed large-scale real-world ignorance now? That’s gonna take a LOT longer than we thought.

Wow, talk about wallowing in ignorance there. Ellis Dee is wrong and you’re an ass. Everyone happy?

Wrong results from trials are rare, but if anything, the fact they happen can be attributed in some part to precisely what you’re championing: a rush to judgment in the public arena, which poisons the jury pool and makes a fair trial more difficult to achieve.

So you’ve got the cart and the horse reversed: stop poisoning the well of public opinion by jumping to conclusions and creating pressure on prosecutors to convict, and many of those bad convictions will go away.

You know what? Poisoning the jury pool and making a fair trial difficult isn’t the least bit of a problem if the prosecutor doesn’t bring the case to trial to begin with.

And pretty much every wrongful conviction starts with a prosecutor taking a case to trial despite shaky evidence.

And do you really think many of the cases in question drew scads of public attention at the time, with even a local firestorm of publicity pushing the prosecutor to act?

With respect to your blaming public furor as the driver behind wrongful convictions, I call bullshit.