I was under the impression he wasn’t any more. But I could be mistaken.
for purposes of legal sanction.
There - fixed that.
You see, we’re free to reach our own determinations of anything we want by any means we choose to; it’s just that those determinations have no legal consequence or other authority, which is why we’re free to do so.
For instance, if I determine on the basis of your posts that you have the I.Q. of a kumquat, I can do so without having access to your Stanford-Binet test results. I may be right or wrong, but I can make that determination if I so choose.
Of course you’re “free” in the sense that no one will break down your door and arrest you for doing so.
But it’s funny, because on those occasions when we get someone claiming that psychics are efficacious in helping police, I don’t recall you (or any regulars except perhaps kanicbird) piping up about how we’re free to reach our own determinations of anything we want by any means we choose to. Instead, I see a very strong sense of the board that conclusions should be supported by evidence, with extraordinary conclusions demanding ever stronger evidence.
Why are you so afraid of the word “rape”? Wouldn’t it be much more succict to say “*rape *intoxicated women”?
Go to Wikipedia and look up articles on the U.S. criminal justice system. You clearly don’t have a clue how it works.
And my question is, why did you even make this “passing quotation”? The only purpose I can see is to excuse rape by making it seem socially acceptable.
Oh, sorry, I didn’t know that someone followed you into a bathroom to rape you and you turned to him and said, “I really don’t want you to insert your penis into my anus, but I’m going to beckon you over and then kiss you lovingly while you rape me.”
Mince we need to talk.. can i hire you to construct a defense of Jay Cutler??
Dude, I’m not the SDMB. I’m not responsible for the “sense of the board” on that issue. And it’s silly to imply that I’ve somehow contradicted myself (what else does “But it’s funny” mean?) because of what I didn’t say in some ancient thread that obviously meant a lot more to you than to me, because I don’t even remember it. Are you sure I even participated in that discussion?
At any rate, I’ve been consistent for years in making the point that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ isn’t a general rule of life, but specifically applies to courts of law - and only Anglo-Saxon criminal jurisprudence even then, I believe.
I think he needs an offensive line more than a defense.
“Come hold my penis” is a pretty offensive line.
Can I request that you delete that email from me before reading it, then?
You are perfectly free to think that Ben is a sleazeball or a bad dude or what-have-you, I’m not talking about that. But you concluded based on news reports that he is guilty of a crime. I think that makes you an ignorant ass. But if that’s who you want to be, you go right ahead.
-
Is someone who’s convinced that OJ Simpson killed his wife an ignorant ass?
-
What makes you think I’m relying on news reports?
-
No, what I have concluded is that Ben’s very likely committed a crime, based on the undisputed actions of him and his henchmen - and that based on those actions, there’s really zero reason to give him the benefit of the doubt about what happened inside that restroom.
You may disagree with my reasoning, and you’re welcome to think I’m an ass, but I’m missing the ‘ignorant’ part here. I think my judgment is fully informed by the facts. What am I missing?
Um… that Velntine’s Day card I sent you? Just ignore it.
Ahem!
Joke thief!
Gentlemen, gentlemen, I have enough hands for *both *your penises.
Well, awful speller, to boot.
But not really a thief. Just independent smack at a easy pitch.
That wasn’t really a question, but thank you for the resource.
This was the first thing today that I actually laughed out loud at. I’m not sure if that’s a indication of how funny you are or how easily-impressed I am.
What you are missing is a couple of helpings of intelligence. You feel fully qualified to render judgment after hearing a shoddy and inclomplete version of the facts, which means you are a moron.
Judgement? On the INTERNET?! Watch out people!
If I’m such a moron, perhaps you can explain what’s ‘shoddy’ or ‘inclomplete’ about the facts as I’ve stated them. What have I got wrong? What have I missed that should change my conclusion?
I’m waiting for specifics, but not exactly with bated breath.