I missed the edit window. My above remarks were unnecessarily personal, for which I apologize. I’ve said my piece and elaborated as much as I think is merited. Anyone is welcome to take or leave my opinion as they think it deserves. For what it’s worth, I have no personal grudge against you.
I think you’ve both missed the point. In the case of the neurosurgeon, the man was convicted of fraud, not rape. As the article points out, the only precedent for “rape by deception” appears to be a case where the victims were coerced into sex with a false offer of free stuff, not simply deceived into sex. In previous cases which involved just deception (like the fake doctor) the charge was fraud, not rape.
I was going to spend time refuting all your nonsense, but I think this is fine.
Anybody who can read the post you just wrote and figure whether or not it was written by someone with “no personal grudge”.
Do you think FinnAgain has me on ignore?
Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?
FinnAgain - I think you’ve done a great job here, of confirming peoples’ shifting suspicions about Israel and many Israeli sympathisers.
+1. If I wasn’t already a raging anti-semite, I’d be off to the nearest enlisting station right now.
Probably not, but then again whatever I say is probably a lie anyway.
You guys are all going to HELL for making fun of a mentally ill person. You should be ashamed.
Well then the “popular meaning” covers only a small percentage of rapes, then.
I hate to inject some actual content into this train-wreck … 
But in answer to your question: it would appear to be a recent change in the law, set by the 2008 High Court decision. Prior to that there was no such animal as “rape by deception”.
In short, based on the exact same facts, in 2007 this fellow would have been charged with “fraud” and in 2010 with “rape by deception”.
Yes. Also, the popular meaning of UFO (Alien Spacecraft ZOMG!!!) is not the actual meaning (Of anything in the sky you can’t identify). There are more examples, but you get the point.
OR it is possible to call someone an anti-semite without using the word anti-semite. I’m not going to dig for examples but you have said things sorta liek this:
“You criticize Israel for doing crappy shit but you don’t criticize Hamas when they do even worse things, why is that? Is it because Israel is full of Jews?”
You may never use the word anti-semite but the implication is clear. You are calling me an anti-semite.
You can obviously add to the conversation. I think you were one of the first people to point out that the commando raid on the maru (while stupid for all sorts of reasons) wasn’t actually illegal. This changed the direction of the conversation. Every time someone called it illegal someone just reposted your link. If instead of doing that, you had simply ranted about bigotry, noone would have listened to a thing you said.
Dial it down a little bit. Don’t assume that everyone who criticizes Israel had some sort of agenda. Perhaps we have been misinformed. I learned something about teh formation of israel during that first “conversation” that we had. if you hadn’t started out with calling me ignorant, “disingenuous” or “bigoted” it might have even been a pleasant learning experience. As it turned out, it was like finding out that fetuses can feel pain from a foaming at the mouth pro-lifer. Its something to think about but its hard to think while you’re wiping off flecks of spit from your face.
Its tough to prove either way but in this case, judging just from teh stuf that we know so far, it smells fishy.
:EEK:
Please don’t force me to read Finn Again’s blog 24/7!
Anything but that.
That’s exactly the issue: the case is “fishy” if you assume that the court etc. are all acting on racist motives, and “not fishy” if you don’t make that assumption.
In short, it acts somewhat as a Rorschach inkblot test - one sees in it what one is predisposed to see in it. Once the actual facts are known, it cannot be said that it is, in point of logic, “racist” in and of itself (though of course the judge etc. may well be racist).
I can’t keep up with all the shit in all the pages, but one aspect I think hasn’t been addressed is the extent to which Kashur went to ‘convince’ the woman he was Jewish.
According to this (and I’ve seen same quoted words in other articles): According to Kashur, he was exiting a grocery store in downtown Jerusalem around midday when a woman in her late 20s began to talk to him. "I would say she set upon me. She was interested in my motorcycle and so we talked. I didn’t pretend. I said my name is Dudu because that’s how everybody knows me. My wife even calls me that." <emphasis mine>
Is there anything Kashur did beyond telling her his name to make her be convinced of Jewishness (and henceforth fuck-worthy)?? I’ve also seen reports where the name Daniel is the basis for her assumption of Jewish fuck-worthiness - is Dudu approximate interpretation and/or translation for Daniel in language of Israel? I honestly have NO idea 
Is it simply the name/nickname that had her so gung-ho for the coitus? Is ‘Dudu’, or even Daniel, simply not allowed for anyone other than a Jew (in Israel where crime occurred anyways). I ask this ignorantly because I cannot fathom a person being judged by a name only. Anyone? Honestly, there just has to be more to this.
Surely Israel’s courts need more than that? Any cites/details/explanation about what ~extent Kashur went to to ‘prove and demonstrate Jewishness deceptively’ to the fucked-over woman? Some regimes have used the yellow ‘stars’ in the past - are names in that category for defining nationality/religion in Israel? (not meaning as an insult or fateful reference)
If this was asked/answered previously, truly sorry - the usual ‘everyone hates Israel’ BS admittedly swamped me and had me glossing quickly past lengthy quoted entries that make bulk of thread, it seems. No help in that, ever. :mad:
I do have to thank you and others of your kind for serving as an object lesson.
Of course, the claim you just made is the very essence of every form of prejudice and absolute groupthink stupidity. “I saw a person from a group who did X, Y and Z, and now I’m generalizing to the group!”
But of course people won’t mind, because it’s the ‘proper’ target.
Just like you’ve all been going bonkers over correct accusations of misbehavior (rather than the misbehavior itself, which you couldn’t care less about), as long as that misbehavior directed at the ‘right’ target.
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out what would be said if, for instance, someone looked at Ivan, a blatant anti-Semite, and said “Ah-hah! Now you’ve shown us what Palestinians and anti-Israeli people are really about.” We have people complaining about accusations of anti-Semitism that don’t even exist.
But you feel fine (and draw down not one word of challenge from your fellow travelers) for using the same exact logic. As long as it’s against the ‘right’ sort of target.
I couldn’t have pointed out the dynamic quite so clearly without such wonderful object lessons.
You invented it and can’t back it up. Not only have I never said you’re an anti-Semite, but I’ve never said anything equivalent to it. Ever. Not once. You’d quote it if I had rather than inventing a quote that has nothing to do with anything I’ve ever said, anywhere, at all.
No, you are making that up, I’ve never said anything of the sort. Along with the earlier questions I asked you, ask yourself why it is that you can voice patently untrue things like your claims about me calling you an anti-Semite, which never actually happened… but if I do things like point out that the OP used a deliberately inaccurate and inflammatory claim to draw attention to the thread, that’s a grave sin.
Again, ask yourself why that is. I’ve been savagely nibbled on for pointing out the facts about what people have said. You’ve been ignored for inventing things about me. If I was (ever so calmly) inventing negative things to ascribe to the anti-Israel crowd, to you think that’d go over any better than when I address the actual, factual, accurate things about the anti-Israel crowd?
-
That was GD, this is the Pit. I’m allowed to vent frustration with the non-stop tactics of the board’s small coterie of hardcore anti-Israel posters. That some folks have decided to nibble fiercely on my ankles about it doesn’t really bother me.
-
No, it didn’t really change the direction of the conversation, as people were continually claiming that it was illegal, that it wasn’t allowed in international waters, that it was piracy, etc, etc, etc. Which is the point: some who’re part of the anti-Israel crowd will reliably traffic in error and fiction if it bolsters their narrative, and most of their fellow travelers won’t call out others as long as they too are advancing an anti-Israel narrative (e.g. Jimmy Carter). And that, in fact, they’ll swarm angrily if someone does call them out.
Then why is it being criticized so heavily inside Israel? Is there actually more recognition of the problems in Israeli society by Israelis than there are by Zionists in Texas?