Come on - there are plenty of situations which people would agree on as rape, but which are not criminally defined as rape. Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them (not punishable as rape under Nebraska law at the time) or the Pennsylvania 63 year old who, along with his wife, allowed a teen to stay with them so she could get out of juvie, and then told her if she did not have sex with him he would have her sent back.
I would hope we would agree that both those men are rapists, despite inadequately written laws. Moreover, in many jurisdictions now there is no crime of rape, just different gradations of sexual assault. Does that mean in those jurisdictions there are no rapists, only sexual assailants?
We simply don’t know that. This law is not racist in and of itself, but nothing in this thread has shown anything either way about its application. Sayign that Jewish men are charged under this law does not show application is not racist. To show that, you would need a situation where a Jewish man lied to a Muslim woman about his religion, and he was similarly charged.
That no one has shown that doesn’t mean the law is applied in a racist manner, but absent that it isn’t possible to say that it is not so applied.
Nope. They used blackmailed people into having sex, but the sex was consensual. IMHO sex has to be non-consensual for it to be rape.
Then again, for what its worth, I disagree with classifying sex with a minor automatically as “statutory rape” as I believe it devalues what rape actually is. Much like your two examples do.
Good to see that idiots like you will allow any dishonesty as long as it supports your anti-Israel narrative, and then you’ll get upset when called on it. Due to how very honest and honorable you are.
Of course, the OP was lying, nobody was “jailed for being Palestinian”, and you know that. The OP knew that, too. But you’ll defend someone lying in order to say something negative about Israel because that’s just the kind of person you are. (Honorable, and honest, too!)
Mate, I haven’t even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.
Just pointing out that for the umpteenth time you joined the discussion throwing around accusations of lying. At least get a fucking thesaurus and add some synonyms to the mix. And possibly a dictionary so you can look up “hyperbole”.
So when you wrote “I’m glad that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn’t satisfy mine.” you actually realise that what you really meant was “I don’t know if that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn’t satisfy mine.”
You see, because all I had to go on is “Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them”. That I do not see as rape. Add in things like trying to forcibly get his penis inside of them, then it is a different matter.
Don’t get arsey if you don’t provide all the evidence.
There’s that honorable nature, and honesty, too!
You objected to me, correctly, noting that the OP was lying when they claimed that a “Palestinian was jailed for being Palestinian.” Rather than object to such blatant dishonesty, which you wouldn’t do because you’re just one of our anti-Israel brigade, you spazzed out and tried to take me to task for, go figure, being right about the OP lying.
Because you’re a partisan shill and you believe that we’re not supposed to call out anti-Israel lying (due to how honorable and honest you are).
Bonus points for your new line of dishonesty, and I do hope it become standard in the We Hate Israel brigade on the Dope. First of all, of course, you’re dishonestly claiming that the fact of the OP lying is a mere “accusation”, like maybe the guy really was jailed for being a Palestinian. :rolleyes: And now if you lie about something, it’s just “hyperbole”. Funny, of course, that all your “hyperbole” ends up being anti-Israel. What’re the odds?
Surely you’re not just a partisan looking to support your anti-Israel bias. Nope. We all know that you’d enthusiastically support someone who said “Israel’s security measures are justified because each and every single Palestinian man, woman and child is a terrorist bomber.” Because, I mean, that’s just hyperbole. And if you get caught in an anti-Israel lie then, why, just claim it’s “hyperbole”. It can’t fail.
Of course (being that you’re so honest and honorable) I’m sure you’ve wondered why it is that your anti-Israel brigade has to resort to wild hyperbole quite so often to make your claims, but (again, due to how honest and honorable you are) you’re much more concerned with the fact that someone noticed that the OP was lying than that the OP was lying.
That was the Pennsylvania case by the way - and on rereading it was Montana not Nebraska. My bad.
The thing is, though, under Pennsylvania law, that he had to force into her did not make it rape. That she didn’t tell him to stop because she was terrified of being sent back to juvie meant it could not result in a rape conviction. If she was terrified because he held a gun to her head, then the conviction would have been upheld. That’s the traditional legal view of rape by the way - that both force and absence of consent are required.
Ah, a man of integrity.
When people lie and are called and it, and other evince bigotry, don’t call them on lying or bigotry, get upset with the guy who notices and points it out.
Obviously, the fact that many people on this board are bigoted against Israel and/or lie to support that narrative reflects very poorly on me.
You’re so smart.
Man you’ve posted more there about me being anti-Israel and a shill than I have in the whole thread. Priorities, mate!
I see the title as hyperbole (remember to get a dictionary). The actual OP doesn’t mention being jailed “for being Palestinian” at all. There are no lies in the OP at all. There is simply a hyperbolic thread title.
Hell, the title doesn’t even mention Israel either.
Is the law that treats fraudulently obtained sex as “rape” a bad law? I take it you think that it is. I tend to agree, it’s a bad law; too many unintended consequences. I note that this is not a particularly Israeli issue, because such laws exist in other countries, too (I posted an academic article on such laws in the US).
Is this case on its face evidence of racism on the part of the court or of Israeli society at large? I am strongly of the opinion that, absent some sort of actual evidence that the law would not be applied if the situations were reveresed, it is clearly not. That is what the quote you cited was arguing. Assuming the law as written, it is not ‘racist’ on the part of the courts to enforce it where the law where the “deception” at issue involves the person’s ethnic identity - because, if a woman has a right to choose not to sleep with someone based on an accurate portrayal of their profession (the surgeon case), they equally have the same right not to sleep with someone based on an accurate portrayal of their identity.
To claim that in the ideal world no woman would be “racist” enough to care about such matters as the ethnicity of whom they have sex with is no answer, because the test is partly subjective and depends on what the woman herself cares about - an the fact is that it is reasonable to expect that many women do care about such matters (and saying so is not racist, or evidence of a racist society, but simply acknowledging reality).
Just for the record, I am bigoted against Israel in the same way as I am bigoted against, oooh, the British Police or al-Qaeda. When they do shit things I say they’ve done shit things.
It isn’t my fault that Israel has been doing a lot of shit things recently.
The last time we discussed this I was very, very clear with my views regarding the Middle East. I was clear that I think both sides are wrong and they have both done some very, very shitty things. I don’t support either.
Yet in your mind, because I don’t accept without question everything Israel does and have been known to criticise them I must somehow be anti-Israel, a bigot, a shill and no doubt an anti-Semite.
That says much more about you than it does about me.
Actually what it says is that, predictably, you’ve decided to start lying, no doubt as part of a bit of your standard trolling so that now you can clutch at your wounded breast and moan about how very unfair it is that I’ve pointed out that you’re lying. It’s a neat trick, and an admitted pedophile like you would probably get upset about someone deliberately crafting dishonest accusations in order to get upset that they’re called a liar. Why, I bet that now you’ll say I’m lying and that you aren’t really a pedophile. Predictable.
Rather obviously, you’re just making shit up. Nobody on this board accepts everything Israel does without question. Most likely, nobody in the world does either. But that’s one of your pack of jackals’ standard lies when it comes to this topic, anybody who doesn’t demonize Israel properly must, of course, support everything they do always.
Just like your “Oh please oh please oh please call me an anti-Semite!” idiocy.
Just like I’ve criticized Israel, Malthus has criticized Israel, DSeid has criticized Israel, Jack has criticized Israel, Captain Amazing has criticized Israel… and, lo and behold, none of them are bigots, or dishonest, or shilling for an agenda. Go figure.
Yeah, that’s the kind of habitual dishonesty that I’m talking about, thanks for the object lesson. “Why, the OP wasn’t even about Israel and sure the very first thing that the OP says and that everybody sees is the lie that a Palestinian man was jailed for simply being a Palestinian, but it was in the title not in the OP, and it’s a lie that supports my hatred of Israel, so it’s cool!”
Why don’t you go start another ATMB thread where you whine about how I’m allow to insult you in the Pit?
Of course, you are an anti-Israel shill and you are objecting to someone being called for for lying because that lie supports your anti-Israel bias.
Yes, as already noted, you are a partisan shill without a shred of personal honor or honesty when it comes to your hatred of Israel. Of course a blatant lie is mere “hyperbole”, a word whose definition you rather obviously don’t know despite your babble about dictionaries. And, of course, as you’re just a partisan whore, you’d be up in arms if someone claimed that Israel is totally justified since all Palestinians are terrorists. You’re just a shill who’ll support one set of lies as “hyperbole” and another as something you just won’t stand for (because it doesn’t support the narrative you’re shilling for, natch).
There may well be cases of unjust laws with institutionalized racist intent or effect in Israel - but this particular case is not one of them.
That’s very complementary.
And in this particular case, there is no evidence of racism.
True, but this case alone is not sufficient evidence that it is enforced in a racist manner.
For the same reason there is here - because it appears, to the uninformed who have not actually thought about it, to be discriminatory.
Just look at this very thread title: “Palestinan jailed fir being Palestinian”. Naturally, this invokes anger (also in the title: “RO” = “recreational Outrage”).
But what he’s saying isn’t “racist”, it is simply an acknowledgement of reality: the same would be true here in Canada - many Jewish women would be upset if they found out that their lovers were lying about being Jewish just to screw them.
I have no idea. To assume facts not in evidence as proof of racism just demonstrates that the actual facts in evidence are not proof of racism.
But, as I’ve pointed out, there is nothing about this law that facilitates “institutionalized prejudice”.
Certainly, if the law was applied in an unjust manner, that would be evidence of prejudice in the system. But that has nothing to do with the law. If for example only Blacks are ever charged with murder and never Whites, the system is racist - but that doesn’t mean the law against murder is racist.
We only have a single case of someone being charged with this sort of rape for identity - that simply is not evidence of institutionalized racism.
