I find it hilarious that a zillion users get on every wikileaks thread there is and spout off the most asinine, fairy-tale about CIA setups, war crimes, and global conspiracies, but you want a citation that references the wildly publicized Guardian's leaking of JA's criminal charges.
I guess that explains why it seems like everyone makes dumb points - because they can't be bothered to read the material they're arguing about.
None of the details of your slippery-slope argument are relevant here.
What would you prefer to call someone who forces sex on an unconscious victim? And are you saying that you personally, as well as many people you've known, have forced sex on unconscious victims?
"They" didn't have sex, as she was unconscious at the time. If it was a situation where they were both awake and coherent, I would have said "they had sex."
Any other pedantic points you'd like to make or can we go ahead and agree that having sex with an unconscious partner who hasn't given consent is rape?
Ahhh, another person that confuses an overall argument with one that's specific to wikileaks.
Yes, I think a man should be charged based on a woman's claim that she was raped by him. If a prosecutor doesn't get enough evidence for a decent run in course, the charges would be dropped.
However, in the JA situation, the police had the word of the women and text messages. Additionally, they scheduled an interview with him, he left the country before the interview, so that + their evidence allowed them to charge him. Is that sufficient for you?
Actually, I don't care if it is, because it was enough for the Swedish police (who I'm pretty sure, Stalin did not love).
I think you're arguing with the voices in your head again, as none of your situations were described by me or is relevant to the rest of the discussion thus far.
Um, that argument has been proven illegal in courts all over the world, and it's a little disturbing you didn't get the memo.
There are many ways that the "roller coaster" can change into something unexpected; the easy obvious one is rough/violent/forceful sex that either partner decides is not what they signed up for. You're saying they have no right but to lay there and get screwed once it starts?
Please go read (more than the first line, or else you'll be very disappointed) and come back with something worthwhile to add other than what you wish the definition of rape was.
Didn't at least one of the accusing women make a blog post after the fact making a positive statement about that night, you know in between it happening and it becoming "rape"?
No, you're incorrect, but I recommend you read the story yourself. I read the Guardian's version. Both woman have different stories and the charges are different in both cases.
I agree, it shouldn't be sufficient evidence to *convict*. Do you feel a woman's word is sufficient to investigate the matter further or should it be ignored without further proof?
If we're talking about the Assange situation, one of the women in question was unequivocally clear that condom-use was a pre-requisite to sex. Assange lost interest, then later had sex with her wearing a condom that night. The next morning, he had sex with her without wearing a condom.
Does that sound like a joint decision?
Again, it's easy to imagine all kinds of scenarios where it's silly, but the fact remains that screwing someone against their will is rape.
Do you consider a man having unprotected sex with a woman who has clearly stated that he needs to wear a condom to be a sex crime on any level? Does he have the woman's consent to have unprotected sex with her?
Also, your comment is formatted as one big, hard-to-read blob; please consider using the paragraph tab at least.
Only a child would think circumstances don't ALWAYS affect a situation. However, I'd like to know where you would draw the line for when a girl no longer has the right to change her mind and withdrawal consent. You've used complete strangers in previous examples, but I presume you don't actually think that's a requirement.
What do overflowing prisons have to do with whether rape has to be violent or not?
If... no consent was ever given, then I see no reason not to call it rape.
So basically, if no consent was given, it's rape with no violence. Correct? Great, thanks for confirming my point.
What most people associate with rape doesn't matter when it comes to the law. We also put people in prison because of illegal, not predatory, actions and those do not imply violence. Otherwise Bernie Madoff would be free right now.
As to the rest, I whole-heartedly agree that there should be more specificity to the definition of rape (to include degree and intent, like homicide) in laws around the world. In fact, I believe Sweden tried to do something along those lines.
Yes, that's how it's categorized. Is that the same as the definition?
If someone has sex with a woman who's passed out drunk, what would you call it? Was violence required?
If you disagree with the definition, please provide an alternative from somewhere other than the top of your head.
That would make sense, given that we follow the same legal framework for murder.
Sleeping sex....ever seen the movie "Kids?"
When bringing up hypothetical situations, lets bear in mind that the woman in question gave consent for protected sex. According to the allegation, one of the consented to having protected sex with JA, who tried to ignore the condom request. She was insistent, and JA eventually quit trying to have any sort of sex with her. She then woke up the next morning to him screwing her brains out without a condom.
She freaked out the next morning, drove to the chemist to get an std test and a day-after pill. She also asked JA to get tested as well, but he refused because he was too busy.
Whatever side you may lie on, that's the story of a scumbag pushing his way past a girls clearly stated limits. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but this isn't a "She changed her mind halfway through" situation; it's a "she was clear and he ignored it" situation.
It's also an allegation that can (and does, frequently) ruin a woman's life because everyone tries to twist words around, throw up fantastical scenarios that have no bearing on the case at hand, and invent their own definitions for rape.
How do you know what Assange did? Or are we declaring people guilty or innocent before trial now?
Did you read the definition of rape provided? Is the word violence anywhere in there? It's a frequent, but not required, ingredient. Sorry if our laws disagree with your personal interpretation.
Rape doesn't mean violence. It means sex without consent. Your personal interpretation of the word and desire for a specific meaning is irrelevant. Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind? At what point in your mind is she committed and her wishes no longer matter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
Average lifespan was 40 precisely because mortality rates were so high. If you made it through the deadzone known as childhood, you could expect a reasonably long life, assuming a virulent plague or war didn't do you in.
they need to reclassify everything with labels instead of folders.
Why would you want to say that? They don't need to know how it's done. Labels look like folders and act like folders, so folders they are.
Google's own presentation to us said otherwise. Many people use folders as a todo list, not strictly categorization, and when it's filed it needs to be gone from view. Labels screw that up. I personally don't use that technique or many of the other bizarro ways real-life users use software to organize their lives/jobs, but I'm still answerable to those same people who would flip out if I told them to learn a new way.
And I'm at a liberal, forward (ITwise) company, the exact opposite of the US government.
Right, have you worked with IT vendors/"solution providers"? Vendors always discount off the list price, but they only discount as much as they think they can get away with while still making the sale. You will get wildly different prices for the exact same product from different vendors.
Slashdot Mirror
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define:rape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
I guess that explains why it seems like everyone makes dumb points - because they can't be bothered to read the material they're arguing about.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden
What would you prefer to call someone who forces sex on an unconscious victim? And are you saying that you personally, as well as many people you've known, have forced sex on unconscious victims?
"They" didn't have sex, as she was unconscious at the time. If it was a situation where they were both awake and coherent, I would have said "they had sex." Any other pedantic points you'd like to make or can we go ahead and agree that having sex with an unconscious partner who hasn't given consent is rape?
Yes, I think a man should be charged based on a woman's claim that she was raped by him. If a prosecutor doesn't get enough evidence for a decent run in course, the charges would be dropped.
However, in the JA situation, the police had the word of the women and text messages. Additionally, they scheduled an interview with him, he left the country before the interview, so that + their evidence allowed them to charge him. Is that sufficient for you?
Actually, I don't care if it is, because it was enough for the Swedish police (who I'm pretty sure, Stalin did not love).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=define:rape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1
Is three sources that disagree with you enough for you yet?
I think you're arguing with the voices in your head again, as none of your situations were described by me or is relevant to the rest of the discussion thus far.
Yes. Charged != conviction.
There are many ways that the "roller coaster" can change into something unexpected; the easy obvious one is rough/violent/forceful sex that either partner decides is not what they signed up for. You're saying they have no right but to lay there and get screwed once it starts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse
Please go read (more than the first line, or else you'll be very disappointed) and come back with something worthwhile to add other than what you wish the definition of rape was.
Didn't at least one of the accusing women make a blog post after the fact making a positive statement about that night, you know in between it happening and it becoming "rape"?
No, you're incorrect, but I recommend you read the story yourself. I read the Guardian's version. Both woman have different stories and the charges are different in both cases.
I agree, it shouldn't be sufficient evidence to *convict*. Do you feel a woman's word is sufficient to investigate the matter further or should it be ignored without further proof?
If we're talking about the Assange situation, one of the women in question was unequivocally clear that condom-use was a pre-requisite to sex. Assange lost interest, then later had sex with her wearing a condom that night. The next morning, he had sex with her without wearing a condom. Does that sound like a joint decision?
Do you consider a man having unprotected sex with a woman who has clearly stated that he needs to wear a condom to be a sex crime on any level? Does he have the woman's consent to have unprotected sex with her?
Also, your comment is formatted as one big, hard-to-read blob; please consider using the paragraph tab at least.
What do overflowing prisons have to do with whether rape has to be violent or not?
If ... no consent was ever given, then I see no reason not to call it rape.
So basically, if no consent was given, it's rape with no violence. Correct? Great, thanks for confirming my point.
What most people associate with rape doesn't matter when it comes to the law. We also put people in prison because of illegal, not predatory, actions and those do not imply violence. Otherwise Bernie Madoff would be free right now.
As to the rest, I whole-heartedly agree that there should be more specificity to the definition of rape (to include degree and intent, like homicide) in laws around the world. In fact, I believe Sweden tried to do something along those lines.
Yes, that's how it's categorized. Is that the same as the definition? If someone has sex with a woman who's passed out drunk, what would you call it? Was violence required? If you disagree with the definition, please provide an alternative from somewhere other than the top of your head.
Sleeping sex....ever seen the movie "Kids?"
When bringing up hypothetical situations, lets bear in mind that the woman in question gave consent for protected sex. According to the allegation, one of the consented to having protected sex with JA, who tried to ignore the condom request. She was insistent, and JA eventually quit trying to have any sort of sex with her. She then woke up the next morning to him screwing her brains out without a condom.
She freaked out the next morning, drove to the chemist to get an std test and a day-after pill. She also asked JA to get tested as well, but he refused because he was too busy. Whatever side you may lie on, that's the story of a scumbag pushing his way past a girls clearly stated limits. Whether it's true or not is another matter, but this isn't a "She changed her mind halfway through" situation; it's a "she was clear and he ignored it" situation.
Right, none of your points do a thing to refute that rape != violence. I see why you decided to post as AC.
It's also an allegation that can (and does, frequently) ruin a woman's life because everyone tries to twist words around, throw up fantastical scenarios that have no bearing on the case at hand, and invent their own definitions for rape.
How do you know what Assange did? Or are we declaring people guilty or innocent before trial now? Did you read the definition of rape provided? Is the word violence anywhere in there? It's a frequent, but not required, ingredient. Sorry if our laws disagree with your personal interpretation.
Rape doesn't mean violence. It means sex without consent. Your personal interpretation of the word and desire for a specific meaning is irrelevant. Are you arguing that once a woman gives consent, she's no longer allowed to change her mind? At what point in your mind is she committed and her wishes no longer matter? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
Average lifespan was 40 precisely because mortality rates were so high. If you made it through the deadzone known as childhood, you could expect a reasonably long life, assuming a virulent plague or war didn't do you in.
they need to reclassify everything with labels instead of folders.
Why would you want to say that? They don't need to know how it's done. Labels look like folders and act like folders, so folders they are.
Google's own presentation to us said otherwise. Many people use folders as a todo list, not strictly categorization, and when it's filed it needs to be gone from view. Labels screw that up. I personally don't use that technique or many of the other bizarro ways real-life users use software to organize their lives/jobs, but I'm still answerable to those same people who would flip out if I told them to learn a new way. And I'm at a liberal, forward (ITwise) company, the exact opposite of the US government.
Right, have you worked with IT vendors/"solution providers"? Vendors always discount off the list price, but they only discount as much as they think they can get away with while still making the sale. You will get wildly different prices for the exact same product from different vendors.