The height of hypocrisy...... (1 Viewer)

[DeeJayH]

Why must you constantly distort the truth? Are your points so weak that they cannot stand on their own merits?

This case was about STATUTORY RAPE. That is not the same thing as RAPE. Why must you twist the truth to make it sound like a RAPE was committed or why must you compare a real life case of Statutory Rape to your made up RAPE case?

Try the truth and facts for once or are you afraid that your argument will collapse, as usual under the scrutiny of the truth?

You seem to "cut and run" quite a bit Navy Pride?

so you really think that the statutory rape of a minor is less harmful to the victim than the rape of an adult?

the child is ****ed for life as a result most of the time
adult rape victims can deal with it better because they are more mature

 

[sissy-boy]

UGH! Man, you're amazing! It was a PLEA BARGAIN. Do you know what that is Navy Pride?

I'm really sick of you blaming everything you don't like on "liberals." It really sucks that you do this in almost every post.

Your posts are grotesque. The idiocy that it takes to always blame the same people for anything that you don't get is monumental.

You've proven again exactly who you are Navy Pride, as you do every day when you write posts just like this one.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thank you for speaking the truth in this matter. Navy's problem is that he lacks the fundamental skills of rational analyzation of a given argument and also doesn't have the ability of empathy but instead bases EVERY argument on his own narrow black & white perspective. It's no wonder he gets so emotionally charged in debates because he cannot look at things rationally.

 

[mixedmedia]

So you would let a 25 year old man skate for raping a 14 year old girl?????

The question here is not what any one of us would do. It is simply putting this into perspective. Men, and women, but mostly men are arrested every day in this country for the statutory rape of minors and most by far plea bargain with their respective state. You started this thread on the premise that a man would not have gotten away with the same sentence but it is not true.
Now, in lieu of an argument, you want to accuse those who are stating the plain truth with placating child molesters?

 

[sissy-boy]

So you would let a 25 year old man skate for raping a 14 year old girl?????

But she didn't rape a 14 year old boy. It was consensual, and if a parent had hired a female prostitute to try to coerce his 14 yo son into sexual activity that he thought was gay, (like from that documentary) you'd be fine with that idea. Double standard indeed.

 

[26 X World Champs]

so you really think that the statutory rape of a minor is less harmful to the victim than the rape of an adult?

Yes, I do, way, way different.

If a young woman has consensual sex with anyone how can you compare that to the violent crime of rape? If you think they're the same then I would suggest that you have discounted the crime of rape.

Think I'm wrong? Why don't you compare the jail times of the two "crimes"? Rapists can go to jail for life. Do people who have consensual sex with minors go to jail for 25 to life?

Honestly for you to suggest the two are equal is a direct insult to any woman whose been raped against her will. One is a very violent crime, the other is a crime only as defined by society's mores.

 

[DeeJayH]

Yes, I do, way, way different.

If a young woman has consensual sex with anyone how can you compare that to the violent crime of rape? If you think they're the same then I would suggest that you have discounted the crime of rape.

Think I'm wrong? Why don't you compare the jail times of the two "crimes"? Rapists can go to jail for life. Do people who have consensual sex with minors go to jail for 25 to life?

Honestly for you to suggest the two are equal is a direct insult to any woman whose been raped against her will. One is a very violent crime, the other is a crime only as defined by society's mores.

i never said they were equal
i think the rape of a child is worse than a rape of an adult because the adults have the mental faculties to understand and deal with what has happened
where as a child does not

and quoting penalties seems ridiculous considering how many people have had to crusade for tougher penalties

And i was gang raped in my 20's, so i know EXACTLY what it is like
put that in your pipe and smoke it
you are debating an actual victim

and you last line is disgusting, and ignorant of the fact of the damage statutory rape has on many of its victims

human sacrifice/murder was/is accepted in many societies
THAT DONT MAKE IT RIGHT

 

[aps]

So you would let a 25 year old man skate for raping a 14 year old girl?????

If the girl did not want to take the stand and the parents asked for a plea bargain, then I would support a plea bargain.

 

[aps]

so you really think that the statutory rape of a minor is less harmful to the victim than the rape of an adult?

the child is ****ed for life as a result most of the time
adult rape victims can deal with it better because they are more mature

It is not less harmful if the child was forcibly raped, as opposed to having consensual sex but not being the right age.

I had sex when I was 16 years old. That would mean that my boyfriend "raped" me. Ummmm, I have very pleasant memories of the intimacy I shared with him.

Please see the following website, DeeJay, which is the "probable cause" document they used to arrest the w h o r e (I already posted it but am re-posting):

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628042teach3.html

On page 3, they note that the defendant had "consensual" sex with the victim. On page 4, it states that the mother overheard her son bragging about having sex with a hot teacher. Further, it shows how the kid willingly went to the defendant's house. It doesn't indicate that he went there by force.

The only reason this was "rape" was because of age--not because the kid was forced to have sex with her. Would you be able to perform if someone attempted to force you to have sex? Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[DeeJayH]

It is not less harmful if the child was forcibly raped, as opposed to having consensual sex but not being the right age.

I had sex when I was 16 years old. That would mean that my boyfriend "raped" me. Ummmm, I have very pleasant memories of the intimacy I shared with him.

Please see the following website, DeeJay, which is the "probable cause" document they used to arrest the w h o r e (I already posted it but am re-posting):

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628042teach3.html

On page 3, they note that the defendant had "consensual" sex with the victim. On page 4, it states that the mother overheard her son bragging about having sex with a hot teacher. Further, it shows how the kid willingly went to the defendant's house. It doesn't indicate that he went there by force.

The only reason this was "rape" was because of age--not because the kid was forced to have sex with her. Would you be able to perform if someone attempted to force you to have sex? Yeah, I didn't think so.

and yet none of that proves the child was not harmed
because he was victimized by an adult in a role of responsibility and authority

it isnt statutory sex
it is statutory RAPE

 

[aps]

and yet none of that proves the child was not harmed
because he was victimized by an adult in a role of responsibility and authority

it isnt statutory sex
it is statutory RAPE

Well, I know of no rape victim who bragged about having sex with someone to his/her friends after the fact and went to the rapist's house to have sex.

It's possible the child was harmed, but somehow I doubt it. The facts tell me otherwise.

 

[sissy-boy]

Ok, ignoring the fact that most 14-year-old girls in the 1800's were married and pregnant, illustrating that they are fully capable of sexual relations and bearing children at that age, let me rephrase the question. Why it's ok for a 16-year-old to have sex with another 16-year-old, but it's not ok for a 16-year-old to have sex with a 25-year-old?

If they're mutually consensual, there's nothing wrong with either in my book. But then I've never been much of a fan of morality anyway - it's cousin 'ideology' should be shortened to 'idiocy'.




I regard "ideology" and "morality" as the two most dangerous forces on this planet. About "ideology" I have expressed my suspicions elsewhere; here I will only mention John Adams's verdict that shortening "ideology" to "idiocy" would save some space and add a great deal to clarity. He had the French Revolution in mind, but "ideologists" haven't changed much since then, have they?

As for "morality" -- or "moralic acid" as Nietzsche called it -- I consider it the major cause of almost all the major atrocities not caused by "ideology." This wonderful invention, "morality," allows people -- normal, ordinary people -- to do things so cruel and violent that they could never bring themselves to do them for selfish reasons. What the sociopath and sadist do for fun, the "moralist" does on behalf of "duty" or "justice."

"Morality," today, allows Moslems to stone women to death, as it once fueled the Christian witch-hunts. "Morality" has excused every war, and glorified some of them. "Morality" constantly plots to subvert the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. "Morality" inspires gay-bashing and the bombing of women's clinics. Why, without "morality" we might all suddenly go stark staring sane.

My vision of Utopia would include a hell of a lot more kindness and mercy than we have now, and a hell of a lot less "morality.' -- Robert Anton Wilson --

 

[Navy Pride]

But she didn't rape a 14 year old boy. It was consensual, and if a parent had hired a female prostitute to try to coerce his 14 yo son into sexual activity that he thought was gay, (like from that documentary) you'd be fine with that idea. Double standard indeed.

A 14 year old can not consent..........Its against the law for and adult to have sex with a 14 year old....Its a class a felony......Its called statuatory rape.........

 

[Navy Pride]

If the girl did not want to take the stand and the parents asked for a plea bargain, then I would support a plea bargain.

And you would let the guy get away with rape? wow!!!!

 

[DeeJayH]

If they're mutually consensual, there's nothing wrong with either in my book. But then I've never been much of a fan of morality anyway - it's cousin 'ideology' should be shortened to 'idiocy'.




I regard "ideology" and "morality" as the two most dangerous forces on this planet. About "ideology" I have expressed my suspicions elsewhere; here I will only mention John Adams's verdict that shortening "ideology" to "idiocy" would save some space and add a great deal to clarity. He had the French Revolution in mind, but "ideologists" haven't changed much since then, have they?

As for "morality" -- or "moralic acid" as Nietzsche called it -- I consider it the major cause of almost all the major atrocities not caused by "ideology." This wonderful invention, "morality," allows people -- normal, ordinary people -- to do things so cruel and violent that they could never bring themselves to do them for selfish reasons. What the sociopath and sadist do for fun, the "moralist" does on behalf of "duty" or "justice."

"Morality," today, allows Moslems to stone women to death, as it once fueled the Christian witch-hunts. "Morality" has excused every war, and glorified some of them. "Morality" constantly plots to subvert the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. "Morality" inspires gay-bashing and the bombing of women's clinics. Why, without "morality" we might all suddenly go stark staring sane.

My vision of Utopia would include a hell of a lot more kindness and mercy than we have now, and a hell of a lot less "morality.' -- Robert Anton Wilson --

*shakes head*

 

[DeeJayH]

If they're mutually consensual, there's nothing wrong with either in my book. But then I've never been much of a fan of morality anyway - it's cousin 'ideology' should be shortened to 'idiocy'.




I regard "ideology" and "morality" as the two most dangerous forces on this planet. About "ideology" I have expressed my suspicions elsewhere; here I will only mention John Adams's verdict that shortening "ideology" to "idiocy" would save some space and add a great deal to clarity. He had the French Revolution in mind, but "ideologists" haven't changed much since then, have they?

As for "morality" -- or "moralic acid" as Nietzsche called it -- I consider it the major cause of almost all the major atrocities not caused by "ideology." This wonderful invention, "morality," allows people -- normal, ordinary people -- to do things so cruel and violent that they could never bring themselves to do them for selfish reasons. What the sociopath and sadist do for fun, the "moralist" does on behalf of "duty" or "justice."

"Morality," today, allows Moslems to stone women to death, as it once fueled the Christian witch-hunts. "Morality" has excused every war, and glorified some of them. "Morality" constantly plots to subvert the Constitutional guarantee of free speech. "Morality" inspires gay-bashing and the bombing of women's clinics. Why, without "morality" we might all suddenly go stark staring sane.

My vision of Utopia would include a hell of a lot more kindness and mercy than we have now, and a hell of a lot less "morality.' -- Robert Anton Wilson --

*shakes head*

 

[26 X World Champs]

And you would let the guy get away with rape? wow!!!!

Why do you insist on using the word RAPE in this instance? Your posts clearly mean that you think there was a violent crime committed against this young man. That somehow he was forced to have nonconsensual sex with his teacher.

Your posts suggest to me that you believe that the violent act of forced sex on a woman (RAPE) is exactly equal to underage consensual sex with someone over 18. That is plain dumb.

RAPE IS A VIOLENT CRIME - IT IS NOT SEX.

Statutory Rape between two consenting people is NOT A VIOLENT CRIME and does not necessarily ruin someone's life. RAPE RUINS SOMEONE's LIFE.

 

[akyron]

Why do you insist on using the word RAPE in this instance? Your posts clearly mean that you think there was a violent crime committed against this young man. That somehow he was forced to have nonconsensual sex with his teacher.

Your posts suggest to me that you believe that the violent act of forced sex on a woman (RAPE) is exactly equal to underage consensual sex with someone over 18. That is plain dumb.

RAPE IS A VIOLENT CRIME - IT IS NOT SEX.

Statutory Rape between two consenting people is NOT A VIOLENT CRIME and does not necessarily ruin someone's life. RAPE RUINS SOMEONE's LIFE.

In order to be capable of consenting you have to be of age. Thats the law right or wrong.

 

[26 X World Champs]

In order to be capable of consenting you have to be of age. Thats the law right or wrong.

Please! RAPE does not equal STATUTORY RAPE. If you think both are equal you are insulting every RAPE victim. Equating a violent crime (RAPE) with a statutory crime is just plain wrong.

Getting hung up in the "it's illegal to have sex with someone 14" to the point that one thinks it's the same thing as someone holding a knife to your neck, beating you silly and then tearing off your clothes and forcing sex with you is wrong, dead wrong.

 

[aps]

And you would let the guy get away with rape? wow!!!!

Sure. If the situation was like the one I had with my boyfriend when I was 16 years old (where I engaged in consensual sex), then I would let him get away with it.

 

[aps]

Please! RAPE does not equal STATUTORY RAPE. If you think both are equal you are insulting every RAPE victim. Equating a violent crime (RAPE) with a statutory crime is just plain wrong.

Getting hung up in the "it's illegal to have sex with someone 14" to the point that one thinks it's the same thing as someone holding a knife to your neck, beating you silly and then tearing off your clothes and forcing sex with you is wrong, dead wrong.

Beautifully stated, World Champs. For all you people who seem to equate statutory rape with forcible rape, please see the following definition:

What is statutory rape?

Statutory rape is illegal sexual activity between two people when it would otherwise be legal if not for their age. The actual ages for these laws vary greatly from state-to-state, as do the punishments for offenders. Many states do not use the actual term "statutory rape," simply calling it rape or unlawful sexual penetration. These laws rarely apply only to intercourse, but rather to any type of sexual contact. Dating someone without sexual contact cannot be considered a form of statutory rape, and is almost never illegal.
All states have an "age of consent," or an age at which a person can legally consent to sexual activity and can then no longer be a victim of statutory rape. Some states also have laws that look at the age difference between the two people as well as their individual ages. All states have laws that have restrictions on the relationship between the two people, changing the age of consent, or the penalty, for sexual relations between a person of authority, such as a teacher, assistant coach, or tutor. These laws change, and can vary depending on other circumstances. For more information on how these laws apply in the various states, try the Answer Board.

Statutory rape charges can be brought up by the victim, parents of the victim, and in most states, they can be raised by the state. California has been a major example of this, filing charges against fathers of pregnant women, at the protest of both the women and the parents of the involved parties.

http://www.sexlaws.org/statrape.html

 

[Navy Pride]

Sure. If the situation was like the one I had with my boyfriend when I was 16 years old (where I engaged in consensual sex), then I would let him get away with it.

But its not the same situation........The boy or girl was 14 and I am sure your boyfriend was not 25 when you were 16.....

Oh and as far as rape vs stautatory rape goes they both are horrific crimes but it really depends on the situation as to which is worse.........

As for example if a prostittute gets raped its a terrible crime but it can not be compared with the statuatory rape of a 10 year old child......

 

[mixedmedia]

As for example if a prostittute gets raped its a terrible crime but it can not be compared with the statuatory rape of a 10 year old child......

So if a prostitute is raped it is not as heinous as the rape of a woman who is not?

 

[mixedmedia]

Why use the example of a prostitute?

 

[aps]

Why use the example of a prostitute?

mixedmedia, I think he used a prostitute because I called the defendant a w h o r e (he may not have realized that I was labeling the defendant).

 

[aps]

But its not the same situation........The boy or girl was 14 and I am sure your boyfriend was not 25 when you were 16.....

Oh and as far as rape vs stautatory rape goes they both are horrific crimes but it really depends on the situation as to which is worse.........

As for example if a prostittute gets raped its a terrible crime but it can not be compared with the statuatory rape of a 10 year old child......

My boyfriend was several years older than I. So 3 years versus 9 years would make you change your answer?

Navy Pride, just answer this--if you know the kid had consensual sex with the defendant, would you continue to label it as a "horrific crime"? If the defendant had forced the kid to have sex with her, the prosecutor would have charged her with rape and not statutory rape. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.