Yesterday I would probably have answered, “As soon as participants in this thread stop attacking me with statements like ‘willfully misinterpret’ regarding that particular sentence.” At this point, I’m probably through regardless since it’s clear that my point is impossible for some people to grasp. Not to agree with, mind you. Simply to understand (see Nightime’s last post). Apparently the courtesy of assuming it’s possible to have differing interpretations is not extended by some in this thread, even as they insist on that courtesy themselves. Rather, disagreement is tantemount to “willful misinterpretation,” deliberate deceit. Sorry if I don’t react well to such unfounded accusations.
::shrug:: I dunno. Since you’re following the thread, you’ll see if I respond to any similar attacks. I can tell you that in the absence of such posts, I’m perfectly fine with letting the point rest.
You don’t even understand my point, yet you are comfortable flinging about accusations regarding my “willful” deceit in trying to manipulate a debate? The sentence required no context. It was not dependent upon any other element of the argument. I explained to you why in my last post. If you don’t get it, fine.
Your clarification is one interpretation of the facts. As is Cheesesteak’s. Neither are consistent with the sequence of events that blowero raised in his point and that I responded to. Period. I have already explained that to you in excruciating detail, with highlighted text. Stop trying to revise history.
Note to blowero: I guess I wasn’t through. Sorry. I probably am now.
I’m not talking about trying to beat him off while he was on top. I’m talking about getting off his dick while SHE’s on top. She’s not some lifeless slug that’s unable to move.
Hypothetically, what if he never touched her at all (besides penetration) while she was on top? She’s sitting, free as a bird, on top, no threat of violence, no force whatsoever to hold her down, is this still rape? If yes, then I suppose it is the man’s job to physically lift the woman off of his manhood to stop himself from raping her, which seems more than a bit silly. If no, then we are talking about degree of effort required.
She was apparently able to move, which is why she was able to attempt to get up and leave, just as the opinion says. You did read it, right? You did see that part, listed under “Facts”, where Laura is quoted as having testified that she “kept…pulling up, trying to sit up to get it out…and he grabbed my hips and pushed me back down and then he rolled me back over so I was on my back”, right? And you also saw the many, many times during the whole ordeal that she expressed an unwillingness to have intercourse, right? I don’t see how you could possibly have missed all that. Or are you just ignoring the specifics of this case in order to better promote your own agenda?
dammit, I had a big response put together and it all vanished on me!
I’m gonna nutshell it. IMO, drawing upon my experiences in studying Judo, I find it highly improbable that someone could control a naked woman from below by grabbing her hips. If her description is bad and there was more going on, I’d change my mind.
I still think her ‘expression’ was vague and easily misinterpreted as a time related concern. Her own testimony reinforces the idea that she was concerned about time (not wanting mom to find out) rather than sex itself.
I find her actions and descriptions of the events so odd, so surreal that I cannot take them at face value.
Apparently the justices of Supreme Court of California did, and I think they were in a much better position to judge Laura’s credibility than any of us here.
Well, since I never dreamed that Bob was going to continue to take portions of my previous posts out of context, even after I stopped participating, let me just make a note here for anyone who jumps into this thread late: The individual sentences of my posts should not be construed as stand-alone arguments. They should be taken in the context of everything I have written. I think I was pretty clear that I agree with the principle of law in which a woman’s withdrawal of consent means that the man must stop having sex with her (or vice-versa). Some people seem to want to portray my position differently; please ignore them.:rolleyes:
You never dreamed. The horror! How can civilized people let such things happen?
You may roll your eyes to your hearts content, scooter, but I ain’t lettin’ this pass. I encourage anyone who is interested (I can’t imagine why anyone would be) to read the thread, and he will see that what has occurred, continuously, during our exchanges, is my going to great lengths to explain myself, and you ignoring everything posted so you could whine again about the horrible injustice being perpetrated against you. You again drop by, not to add anything substantive, not to clarify, not to rebut, but to whine. Pathetic.
And when it would be SO easy to show how I’m doing what you say I am by simply responding to my fucking posts. It must be very difficult for you, debating in a format like this where your words can’t be changed after the fact, where everything you contribute is there for all to see. Sort of squeezes all the juice out of your martyrdom. Anyway, here’s one for good measure::rolleyes:
And a :dubious:, no extra charge. Hey, and how about one of these :eek:. What the hell, have two of these and keep the change.
Now run along and stop posting your wounded bullshit in the hope that I won’t counter it with the truth.
I know many times Great Debates turn into Great BBQ Starter threads, but this is rediculous. I’ve read the entire 3 pages of arguments here, and I’ve concluded that both Bob Cos and blowero have become mired in the tiny details of their own arguments. You both have separate opinions. You both are playing the martyr. This is a debate forum, not the Pit. If you want to pick apart each other’s individual sentences do that in the pit. Here’s the key point I want to make:
This forum is not a nitpickerium. If one poster says something that another poster then decides to pounce on which prompts the first poster to say something along the lines of, “What I said was…” followed by the second poster saying, “Well here’s what you wrote” you BOTH are arguing for the sake of argument AND NOT the sake of debate.
I’ve enjoyed the many opinions in this dicey thread, but the arguing and clipping is beginning to get tiresome.
This really doesn’t have to be a big issue. You thought that Blowero was saying that her behavior was justification for ignoring her feelings. But in fact he was saying that her behavior influenced how those feelings were interpreted.
Think of it like this: Blowero says he doesn’t want to be part of this thread any more. Now, if you were forcing him to post in this thread then you would interpret that as him telling you to stop. However, if you are not forcing him you would likely interpret it as him saying he is going to leave the thread. So if he doesn’t leave the thread, you will probably continue to post to him despite him saying he didn’t want to be part of the thread any more.
You see the difference force makes in how the words are interpreted? I am just making the point that force is very relevant to this situation. Now, was the guy in this case forcing the girl to stay? The dissenting judge thought not. The other judges thought he did. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know. That is why I (and Blowero) are not saying the ruling was wrong, or that the guy should have gotten off.
**By “feelings” here do you mean the statment she made to the effect of “I don’t want to do this”? I’m not trying to be obtuse, I just want to make sure. Because if you do, I will reiterate that if the behavior that influenced that interpretation occurred BEFORE she expressed her feelings, then, no, it should not influence the way her statement is interpreted. Prior consensual sex is not justification for interpreting a statement as equivocal. Her statement may have been equivocal, but the law does not permit her prior behavior to be justification for this interpretation.
blowero may have meant otherwise, but this effectively is what he stated–i.e., she had consensual sex, then she said “I don’t wanna.” His question was, shouldn’t the obvious ambivalence suggested by this combination of acts be a factor in determining whether or not she actually withdrew consent? The answer is still, no. We can let this puppy die, and that’s fine with me. I’m just pointing out, yet again, that I didn’t misinterpret or misconstrue or mis-anything, deliberately or otherwise, and I don’t appreciate when people suggest that I’m being willfully deceitful. I’m funny that way.
If she made the statement, THEN engaged in consensual sex, THEN had sex that may or may not have been consensual, then, yes, it’s possible to argue that her original statement became at the very least ambiguous as soon as she has consensual sex. I don’t believe that’s what occurred, but I get that point. It’s also not the scenario I responded to.
Your analogy lost me completely. Suffice it to say that while I disagree with your interpretation that there may not have been force used, I understand fully that if she could have easily left on her own power, without any fear for her welfare, then it makes for a weak rape case. I don’t believe that’s what occurred, but I understand that point, just as I have throughout the thread.
No thanks. I’m not interested in providing any more arguments for you to finely chop up, add a dash of misinterpretation, and present out of context as your own personal strawman dinner. I really wish you would just drop it, already.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
I thought of this thread when watching “The O’Reilly Factor” tonight. He interviewed one of the defendant’s lawyers, and a victims’ rights representative (with the HUGEST ears, I might add!).
They had an “abbreviated” overview of the case, and while I thought O’Reilly was pretty evenhanded, he seemed to be leaning towards, “If one person wants to stop the sex, you’d better stop.” It was pretty interesting. You can catch a repeat of the O’Reilly show tonight on FoxNews at 4 am EST, 3 am CST, 1 am PST.
what if i board bus, and then come up to the driver and say i changed my mind, i want to go back home now. he waits 90 seconds then stops the bus, have i been kidnapped ?
but if there was somebody lying on the pavement he would have stopped the bus immediately, not after 90 seconds ? yes, so what ?
what if a bus driver changed HIS mind and halfway through the trip threw you out of the window - would you like that ?
.