NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 You began posting in this thread with unwarranted personal attacks based on what you perceived was reality. You assumed that those of us saying the guy might be innocent are allowing rape to continue, this sounds like Bushism. You have no idea who's been raped and who's a rapist, neither do the rest of us, but at least we're willing to admit it. And instead of attacking people, saying that their belief that you're innocent until proven guilty is going to get their family members and friends raped, just stop. That's like saying because you don't agree with the Iraq war you were a Saddam Hussein supporter and all the things he did was okay and you allowed hundreds of thousands of people to be innocently murdered and innocent women raped daily (due to his two sons which he allowed to roam free). It's a ridiculous arguement and it has absolutely nothing to do with rape, it has to do with whether or not you believe the legal system should be based on proving guilty (my take) or proving innocence (you're take). And, as we can see, people who have had close relationships to rape victims aren't even agreed on proving guilt or innocence, so before you go asking someone else if they have a mother, sister, father, son (men are rape victims too) just stop. It's offensive in the highest degree to assume that because someone doesn't agree that an accusation proves guilt that they're a rapist supporter. I'm sorry if my remarks were taken the way that you perceived them. I never, ever said that "innocent before guilty" is getting anyone raped, and, again, I'm sorry if that's how you took them. I meant that we should not let Sanchez, or anyone else, off just because charges were dropped. Research in the field shows that a lack of prosecution in no way means that the accused didn't do it. "Charges dropped, case dismissed" is the attitude that I'm attacking. This debate is in no way analogous to Bush or the Iraq war, so I will not respond to that. And rape awareness is something that EVERYONE should have. I make no apologies for asking people to take a reality check, and I encourage you, and everyone else, to do it daily. One rape every 30 to 120 seconds. One in four. Don't forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 No. you are a joke because you think Rape is worse than taking someone's life. The brilliance of your argument is overwhelming. :jerk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 A rape kit is not a pap smear. Evidence is gone in 120 hours. Talking is unbelievably difficult. I don't know what you're getting at, but it sounds like you're making this out to be an easy process, but I know that you know that it isn't. I'm confused.I'm not ready to crucify anyone; I am just not willing to let him off just because charges were dropped. The Duke case was handled horribly by the prosecution, police, AND defense. I don't know what else to say to prove to you that I, from personal experience not a book, realize that the process is difficult for a victim. My point, through the entire thread, has been that none of us know what happenned and so treating the guy like he's guilty because of accusations isn't enough for me. If we get a police report that there was more to it, or the victim comes out and bears testimony against him, then at least we could make some kind of educated guess, but basing his guilt off of rape statistics and because of our personal experience doesn't make him any more guilty. I'm not siding with the accused here, I don't think anyone is, I'm just saying that before we refuse to take a guy, you're going to have to show me more because I've seen rape cases from the accuser's angle where she was telling the truth, and where she later admitted she did it because she wanted revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 N/M not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I'm sorry if my remarks were taken the way that you perceived them. I never, ever said that "innocent before guilty" is getting anyone raped, and, again, I'm sorry if that's how you took them. I meant that we should not let Sanchez, or anyone else, off just because charges were dropped. Research in the field shows that a lack of prosecution in no way means that the accused didn't do it. "Charges dropped, case dismissed" is the attitude that I'm attacking.This debate is in no way analogous to Bush or the Iraq war, so I will not respond to that. And rape awareness is something that EVERYONE should have. I make no apologies for asking people to take a reality check, and I encourage you, and everyone else, to do it daily. One rape every 30 to 120 seconds. One in four. Don't forget. The Bush/Iraq war arguement is how I thought you were arguing that if we didn't support throwing accused people into prison we supported rape. Thank you for clarifying and I'm sorry I mistook your intentions. I know all the rape stats. We agree on the seriousness of the crime, and we even agree that because someone wasn't convicted doesn't mean they weren't guilty. We just don't agree on how we should treat people who have been accused and not proven guilty. I don't think, unless you have more knowledge of the situation, or you know the people invovled, that you can treat someone differently because of what someone accused them of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 No. you are a joke because you think Rape is worse than taking someone's life. I've had friends murdered and friends who've been raped. I don't know what's worse for the victim after seeing it from both angles. Honestly, I couldn't tell you one is worse than the other. On the one hand a life is cut short, on the other hand a person is tortured for a lifetime. So, from personal experience, I don't even know the answer to that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 so....where are you getting your 1 in 4 statistic? Klaw, E. L. (2005). Challenging rape culture: awareness, emotion and action through campus acquaintance rape education. Women & Therapy: A Feminist Quarterly, 28(2), 48. Any other questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 N/M not worth it. His staticstics are spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Klaw, E. L. (2005). Challenging rape culture: awareness, emotion and action through campus acquaintance rape education. Women & Therapy: A Feminist Quarterly, 28(2), 48.Any other questions? That's been debunked a thousand times. It's a lie, a myth at best, if one is ignorant. And the defense handled the Duke case poorly? really? your stance on this thread makes it clear why rape is so often used to falsely accuse someone in order to destroy them (look it up, FBI and other sources indicate it's the most falsely filed claim and the amount could be from 10 to 50 percent.) Same with child molestation. Allege and destroy because you're guilty until proven innocent. You're better off being charged with murder in this country. Rape is not as common as you think, I don't care what you read in a book by a radical feminist with an agenda to advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 His staticstics are spot on. possibly. from what I found, they range from 1 in 3 to 1 in 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 What was "shady" about Sean Taylor's past coming out of college? C'mon, you know. It's because he was from the University of Miami. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 possibly. from what I found, they range from 1 in 3 to 1 in 6. So I'm possibly right even though I'm right? And one in three, four, five, or six is acceptable? That's been debunked a thousand times. It's a lie, a myth at best, if one is ignorant.And the defense handled the Duke case poorly? really? Been debunked a thousand times? What the hell are you talking about? I misspoke on "Defense", sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chow184 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 basically if you're a part of the cult of colt,you can't use this against sanchez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 I don't know what else to say to prove to you that I, from personal experience not a book, realize that the process is difficult for a victim. My point, through the entire thread, has been that none of us know what happenned and so treating the guy like he's guilty because of accusations isn't enough for me. If we get a police report that there was more to it, or the victim comes out and bears testimony against him, then at least we could make some kind of educated guess, but basing his guilt off of rape statistics and because of our personal experience doesn't make him any more guilty. I'm not siding with the accused here, I don't think anyone is, I'm just saying that before we refuse to take a guy, you're going to have to show me more because I've seen rape cases from the accuser's angle where she was telling the truth, and where she later admitted she did it because she wanted revenge. I'm ridiculously sorry if I've in anyway implied that you don't know the excruciating heartache involved in a rape investigation. That was absolutely NOT my intention. Again, I am not saying that he's guilty or that we shouldn't take him (based on that, though I'm against taking ANY quarterback this year), but it is dangerous for, in a sex crime investigation, to let someone off simply because they were not convicted. The Bush/Iraq war arguement is how I thought you were arguing that if we didn't support throwing accused people into prison we supported rape. Thank you for clarifying and I'm sorry I mistook your intentions.I know all the rape stats. We agree on the seriousness of the crime, and we even agree that because someone wasn't convicted doesn't mean they weren't guilty. We just don't agree on how we should treat people who have been accused and not proven guilty. I don't think, unless you have more knowledge of the situation, or you know the people invovled, that you can treat someone differently because of what someone accused them of. I think that we agree more than this thread makes it seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 So I'm possibly right even though I'm right? And one in three, four, five, or six is acceptable? . no. you are only right if you are right. If you are claiming 1 in 4 (from the an obviously biased quarterly feminist mag.) then you are right. However, if the true statistic is 1 in 6, then you are wrong. See how that works? One rape isn't acceptable. I never said any number was. Can you point to where I said it was? Can you even point to where I hinted it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 no. you are only right if you are right. If you are claiming 1 in 4 (from the obviously biased rag "feminist quarterly) then you are right. However, if the true statistic is 1 in 6, then you are wrong. See how that works? One rape isn't acceptable. I never said any number was. Can you point to where I said it was? Can you even point to where I hinted it was? This may be the worst post I've ever seen. Did you seriously just call a peer-reviewed journal biased because its title included the word "feminist"? Seriously? There are more things wrong with that than a single post could point out. What an effing dumbass thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 That's been debunked a thousand times. It's a lie, a myth at best, if one is ignorant.And the defense handled the Duke case poorly? really? Emotionally and personally I wouldn't get within 1,000 miles of Mark Sanchez, but that's based on the emotions that the accusations stir up. But, because I know my emotions have nothing to do with his experience, just my own, I know allowing my emotions to drive my perception of the kid (or the victim) aren't logical. Because I know that, I'd draft him, if I were trying to get a QB and thought he was the best QB in the draft at my position. I don't know anything about him today that I didn't know yesterday. The prosecution really did brutalize their own case, but it was because of the way they: 1. pulled the evidence and testimonies together, and 2. even when they saw they had no way of winning the district attorney put the trial through anyway because he was earning popular points with the community and was up for reelection right in the middle of the case. Unless I'm mistaken he lost his license to practice law and got kicked out of office for how badly he messed that case up. No honest lawyer would put a victim through that kind of mess unless he knew there was a possibility that the assailant would be convicted. It's much harder on the victim than the perpetrator, especially if the perp knows they have no case. I'm not saying an assault did/didn't occur at that party, I don't know. I just know that the way the prosecution put the case together was criminal and the DA should have gone to prison for doing what he did, the way he did, for the reasons he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sorry Ghost, I had a brain fart there. Thought you were talking about the prosecution, the positons got mixed up in my head. I agree the Defense didn't mess the case up, the DA was the prosecutor. I've fixed my above post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Sorry Ghost, I had a brain fart there. Thought you were talking about the prosecution, the positons got mixed up in my head. I agree the Defense didn't mess the case up, the DA was the prosecutor. I've fixed my above post. Yeah, I did the same thing. Pretty horrible that it's the survivor is usually the one on trial instead of the perpetrator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dictator Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 This may be the worst post I've ever seen.Did you seriously just call a peer-reviewed journal biased because its title included the word "feminist"? Seriously? There are more things wrong with that than a single post could point out. What an effing dumbass thing to say. so point out where I hinted that any number of rape is ok? Also. You can't even read your own sources correctly. Your peer reviewed journal states 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a "sexual assault". Not Rape. Sexual Assault. Something they don't even bother to define in the course of their study. Not only that, but they are pulling statistics from the 80s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jflow78 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Yeah, I did the same thing. Pretty horrible that it's the survivor is usually the one on trial instead of the perpetrator. Agreed. I've gotten used to getting angry at the perpetrator every time I hear one of these cases, remembering my own experience, and I have to logically reason with myself until I'm at a neutral point just to stay calm. After 15 years of doing it, it's become more natural, but there's a great reason they wouldn't let me serve on a jury during one of these trials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 so point out where I hinted that any number of rape is ok? Also. You can't even read your own sources correctly. Your peer reviewed journal states 1 in 4 college women will be the victim of a "sexual assault". Not Rape. Sexual Assault. Something they don't even bother to define in the course of their study. Not only that, but they are pulling statistics from the 80s. Do a little more research, pal. "sexual assault" and "rape" are commonly used together. It doesn't have to be defined in the study. Yes, statistics from the 1980s. What, exactly, is your point? Do you want other stats to make yourself look stupid? I'll provide them. Arguing with me about this is just make you look ignorant, desperate, and sexist. Let me know if those adjectives don't apply. Don't like the facts? Change them by learning a thing or two before speaking the way that you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted April 21, 2009 Author Share Posted April 21, 2009 Well this thread is going just swimmingly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Lloyd Christmas Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 can he run a WCO? thats a bigger question in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Adama Posted April 21, 2009 Share Posted April 21, 2009 Hmmm sounds like a typical American young-adult to me. Drinking while under-age...check. Drinking until intoxication.....check. Trying to grope a college coed while intoxicated....check. Now if he had actually raped a woman, I would be pissed if we drafted him, but that is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.