ciberido: And yes, IANAL but I believe that the victim's physical arousal has been used by the defense in more than one rape case.

Yeah, this is a problem.  I'm not entirely sure about women, but I know that it's often possible to get an erection off a comatose or even brain-dead male.  So it wouldn't surprise me one bit that a sufficient amount of stimulation.

heili skrimsli: Other than being aware of my surroundings and noticing whether or not a stranger is doing something that indicates they may be up to no good, I don't really walk around in a state like Defcon 2 at all times. It takes something specific, more than just the presence of a stranger for me to be 'on edge'.

I tend to run around in 4 all the time - One thing I've learned in life is that simply being aware of your surroundings can prevent something like 90% of your being a crime victim.  Looking at that other guy in the parking lot and acknowledging him in a neutral fashion can prevent you from being a victim, stuff like that.

Again: http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: wants to be allowed to continue to defame her alleged rapist without consequences.

What's his name?

If you can't name him, then you can't claim she's defaming him.

I'm sure everyone on the campus knows exactly who she's talking about.

Can you prove that?

Yes, by going to the campus and hanging around for a week or two.

Then please do so before you publicly accuse someone of slander, without evidence.

Kind of like accusing someone of rape without evidence?

/or is that "secret evidence"?

MagSeven: And yes, IANAL but I believe that the victim's physical arousal has been used by the defense in more than one rape case.

What does that stand for? I'm assuming it's like AFAIK (as far as I know) I can't really Google it at work...

"I Am Not A Lawyer."

/although I actually am a lawyer

OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: wants to be allowed to continue to defame her alleged rapist without consequences.

What's his name?

If you can't name him, then you can't claim she's defaming him.

I'm sure everyone on the campus knows exactly who she's talking about.

Can you prove that?

Yes, by going to the campus and hanging around for a week or two.

Then please do so before you publicly accuse someone of slander, without evidence.

Kind of like accusing someone of rape without evidence?

I can't say that I've ever heard of someone accusing someone of rape without evidence. It would be pretty tough to do: "You raped someone, but I can't say who because I wasn't there. I only know that you did it, but not based off your own admissions or any other evidence."
I mean, really, how exactly do you imagine that would go? It would have to pretty similar to your "I accuse her of slander, but I have no idea whom she slandered or what she said about them because I wasn't there, don't know anyone involved, and haven't even read any names."

But no, that's not what you meant. What  you meant was that the victim's own statements don't count as evidence. Not sure why you think that... maybe you just want to silence women? Maybe you're stuck back in the 1800s and think they shouldn't be allowed to testify in court?

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: wants to be allowed to continue to defame her alleged rapist without consequences.

What's his name?

If you can't name him, then you can't claim she's defaming him.

I'm sure everyone on the campus knows exactly who she's talking about.

Can you prove that?

Yes, by going to the campus and hanging around for a week or two.

Then please do so before you publicly accuse someone of slander, without evidence.

Kind of like accusing someone of rape without evidence?

I can't say that I've ever heard of someone accusing someone of rape without evidence. It would be pretty tough to do: "You raped someone, but I can't say who because I wasn't there. I only know that you did it, but not based off your own admissions or any other evidence."
I mean, really, how exactly do you imagine that would go? It would have to pretty similar to your "I accuse her of slander, but I have no idea whom she slandered or what she said about them because I wasn't there, don't know anyone involved, and haven't even read any names."

But no, that's not what you meant. What  you meant was that the victim's own statements don't count as evidence. Not sure why you think that... maybe you just want to silence women? Maybe you're stuck back in the 1800s and think they shouldn't be allowed to testify in court?

Her statement under oath or under penalty of perjury would mean something.  Outside of that, it is gossip.

If she would make an official statement (police report), I would change my current stance that she is slandering someone.  So long as she is skipping that whole fair trail for the accused part, I consider her nothing more than the pscho-ex-girlfriend.

OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: wants to be allowed to continue to defame her alleged rapist without consequences.

What's his name?

If you can't name him, then you can't claim she's defaming him.

I'm sure everyone on the campus knows exactly who she's talking about.

Can you prove that?

Yes, by going to the campus and hanging around for a week or two.

Then please do so before you publicly accuse someone of slander, without evidence.

Kind of like accusing someone of rape without evidence?

I can't say that I've ever heard of someone accusing someone of rape without evidence. It would be pretty tough to do: "You raped someone, but I can't say who because I wasn't there. I only know that you did it, but not based off your own admissions or any other evidence."
I mean, really, how exactly do you imagine that would go? It would have to pretty similar to your "I accuse her of slander, but I have no idea whom she slandered or what she said about them because I wasn't there, don't know anyone involved, and haven't even read any names."

But no, that's not what you meant. What  you meant was that the victim's own statements don't count as evidence. Not sure why you think that... maybe you just want to silence women? Maybe you're stuck back in the 1800s and think they shouldn't be allowed to testify in court?

Her statement under oath or under penalty of perjury would mean something.  Outside of that, it is gossip.

Ah, so you're familiar with all of the procedures of the UNC Honor Board? Are you on the board? Are you sure she didn't swear an oath?

If she would make an official statement (police report), I would change my current stance that she is slandering someone.  So long as she is skipping that whole fair trail for the accused part, I consider her nothing more than the pscho-ex-girlfriend.

Gosh, you're so gracious. You realize that your current stance is itself slanderous? Or would be if anyone anywhere had even the slimmest chance of believing your words.

WhippingBoy: MagSeven: And yes, IANAL but I believe that the victim's physical arousal has been used by the defense in more than one rape case.

What does that stand for? I'm assuming it's like AFAIK (as far as I know) I can't really Google it at work...

I. LOVE. ANAL. (you can't type a "heart" symbol)

I♥ ANAL

robohobo: orbister: Genevieve Marie: The idea that just existing while female- having a body that exists in a culture that commoodifies female bodies- is somehow irresponsible.

Here we go again. If you live in a hostile environment, it makes sense to reduce risk to yourself in the short term by behaving pragmatically as well as in the long term by trying to change the environment.

WHAT?! You should totally be able to run naked through a cactus forest without getting pricked, and if you do get pricked, it's all the cactus' fault you weren't wearing clothes and boots and also you got drunk and took off your clothes knowing you were about to walk through a cactus forest.

I haven't followed closely enough to tell which of you is using sarcasm here, but I'll add my two cents anyway.

This analogy for rape reduces men to inanimate objects unable to control their sexual urges, and makes women responsible for the actions of others to the detriment of their freedom and equality. In our society, men can run naked through the cacti and things don't usually happen to them, but women are supposed to abstain.

It's not fair that a man can get as wasted as he wants but a woman can't because she might get raped and then it's all her fault for wanting to enjoy the same freedoms as a man. If a woman has to be on guard for rape, if she has to adopt different behaviors from men out of fear, something is terribly wrong with our society.

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Theaetetus: OgreMagi: wants to be allowed to continue to defame her alleged rapist without consequences.

What's his name?

If you can't name him, then you can't claim she's defaming him.

I'm sure everyone on the campus knows exactly who she's talking about.

Can you prove that?

Yes, by going to the campus and hanging around for a week or two.

Then please do so before you publicly accuse someone of slander, without evidence.

Kind of like accusing someone of rape without evidence?

I can't say that I've ever heard of someone accusing someone of rape without evidence. It would be pretty tough to do: "You raped someone, but I can't say who because I wasn't there. I only know that you did it, but not based off your own admissions or any other evidence."
I mean, really, how exactly do you imagine that would go? It would have to pretty similar to your "I accuse her of slander, but I have no idea whom she slandered or what she said about them because I wasn't there, don't know anyone involved, and haven't even read any names."

But no, that's not what you meant. What  you meant was that the victim's own statements don't count as evidence. Not sure why you think that... maybe you just want to silence women? Maybe you're stuck back in the 1800s and think they shouldn't be allowed to testify in court?

Her statement under oath or under penalty of perjury would mean something.  Outside of that, it is gossip.

Ah, so you're familiar with all of the procedures of the UNC Honor Board? Are you on the board? Are you sure she didn't swear an oath?

If she would make an official statement (police report), I would change my current stance that she is slandering someone.  So long as she is skipping that whole fair trail for the accused part, I consider her nothing more than the pscho-ex-girlfriend.

Gosh, you're so gracious. You realize that your current stance is itself slanderous? Or would be if anyone an ...

Why not apply those standards to her and her unsubstantiated claims against her ex-boyfriend?

OgreMagi: Why not apply those standards to her and her unsubstantiated claims against her ex-boyfriend?

What are you talking about? All such claims are unsubstantiated until there's been a finding of fact and, in criminal cases, a conviction. You're saying that all witnesses in every case are committing slander because they're talking before the jury has found the defendant guilty? Do you even understand what you're saying?

Theaetetus: Voiceofreason01: Nowhere in the article or the articles posted in the comments does it say she went to the police and nobody has been charged with a crime. I'm not going to come and white knight a rapist but there's also no real evidence that the boyfriend raped anybody.

The article does not ever name the boyfriend, but you said: "If we look at the evidence so far the boyfriend might have a good libel case against her and the university." Trying to fall back on the evidence in the article  now means that yes, you  were trying to white knight a rapist.
In fact, the very mention of "boyfriend" is white knighting the rapist  since you're the only person to suggest a boyfriend was involved.

I might believe that University is covering things up but are you asserting that the local and State police are just ignoring accusations of rape?

If you "might believe that University is covering things up" then why did you say that "theboyfriend might have a good libel case against... the university"? This is inconsistent: you say some boyfriend you dreamed up (because it's not mentioned anywhere in the article) has a libel case against the university, but admit that the university could be covering up a rape.

But yes, I'll be frank: you're not really white knighting a rapist, you're  attacking a rape victim to destroy her credibility, based on your imagined "boyfriend" and accusations against the university.

/Interestingly I have you farkied as a troll.

I bet you can guess how I have you farkied, and in what color.

Not to be a pedant, but you and Somacandra are both conflating two different cases.  Most of your critics are talking about the main person in the article, Landen Gambill, who filed a stalking charge against a boyfriend, and you are talking about Pino, who claims to have been assaulted and raped by an unidentified attacker.

I would hate to think you were doing that on purpose to score points and make it look like rape enablers are just everywhere, but since you like to claim people are sociopaths just because they question your assumptions, or don't believe everything they hear, it's hard to give you much credit.

I suppose this comment makes me a rape enabler too?

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: Why not apply those standards to her and her unsubstantiated claims against her ex-boyfriend?

What are you talking about? All such claims are unsubstantiated until there's been a finding of fact and, in criminal cases, a conviction. You're saying that all witnesses in every case are committing slander because they're talking before the jury has found the defendant guilty? Do you even understand what you're saying?

No.  I'm saying that so long as she refuses to go to the police and make a proper report, her statements should not be given any weight.  If she was raped, the guy belongs in prison, but we won't know anything until there is a trial.  And a trial of public opinion does not count.

OgreMagi: And a trial of public opinion does not count.

... says the guy insisting she's committing slander.

Theaetetus: OgreMagi: And a trial of public opinion does not count.

... says the guy insisting she's committing slander.

Says the guy who is defending possible slander.

Theaetetus:
Gosh, you're so gracious. You realize that your current stance is itself slanderous? Or would be if anyone an ...

Wow.  That claim of being a lawyer is pretty slim when you fail this hard.  Any L1 would be able to tell you two things wrong with your idiocy on this specific quote, and three if they tried hard.

BarkingUnicorn:

(Me): BarkingUnicorn: (Me): BarkingUnicorn: Damn, you really know your imaginary history!

Which part is imaginary? That Clayton Williams really said that? That it cost him the election? That Ann Richards won because of that? That George W. Bush was able to run against her afterwards because the GOP had no incumbent in the race? That George W. Bush could never have been taken seriously enough to run for, let alone become, President, without first being Governor of a State or a U.S. Senator? That George W. Bush's two terms, which could not have happened without that joke, seriously messed up this nation?

That we'd be $4 trillion richer if Bush hadn't been elected.

This must be some new definition of "imaginary" with which I had been previously unaware. Note that that's just the Iraq war and its ancilliary expenses. That doesn't count the other wars, the other fiscal boondoggles, the overall mismanagement of the economy, etc. Note also that this article is from The Wall Street Journal, not 'zactly the libbest lib media that ever libbed.

We were told that the bill would come to, at most, $80 billion ― $50 billion at the low end. Remember, Bush fired his economic advisor Lawrence Libby for daring to suggest that it might be as much as $200 billion ― less than $¼ trillion! It turned out to be the reciprocal of that many trillion, 16 (sixteen-fold) the estimate that Libby was canned for daring to suggest!

And nobody but Bush would have done that. It couldn't have happened without him.

I know you meant that sarcastically, but pretty much yeah. Of the viable candidates around that time from any party, only Dubya was a stooge of The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) ― note that that link is not to some conspiracy theory nutcase blog nor some exposé site, but is the actual website of the actual PNAC think-tank itself (feel free to do a WHOIS lookup to verify its bona-fides)!

Check out their website. I could give you direct links to the following, but I won't, because I want you to get to them yourself right from their very own website.

First, read the Statement of Principles (mini-menu near the upper right corner, just below the masthead). Note the date on that: this organization is at least that old, and this website dates back to the Clinton Administration. Indeed, that Statement of Principles itself began as an open letter to then-President Clinton! Read it. Note also the list of signatory members at the bottom. Dubya himself isn't on the list, but look who all is! Recognize any names? How many of those were people who were not in positions of actual major governmental power at that time, but who were subsequently appointed to such positions under Dubya?

And now, the biggie: in the main menu in the sidebar on the left, click on "Publications/Reports." From that page, in the main content area, click on the last item in the last group ("Project Papers"): Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. Note the date on it (both in the menu and on the cover: September, 2000 ― a full year before the infamous September 11, 2001 terror attacks that were the alleged reason for our (second) invasion of Iraq!

Read that whole paper, all 90 pages of it. And the others as well. And the rest of the site. Until you have read at least that paper, you're simply not intellectually qualified to debate me on this.

Anyway, without Dubya, the PNAC would not have had their puppet in the Oval Office. He was basically Pinky to their The Brain in their plans to, quite literally, take over the world in the name of the USA ("Pax Americana" ← their term!). The invasion of Iraq was key to that goal, and it was planned out in very precise detail in that document that, remember, predates 9/11 by a full year!

Without Dubya, they might've been able to use Jeb Bush instead. Jeb is smarter, and unlike George W., is an actual signatory member of the PNAC (see his name on the open letter to Clinton in the Statement of Principles ― Cheney is also a member). As Governor of Florida, he would've made a credible Presidential candidate. But they went with George W. instead, perhaps for the name recognition of his namesake ex-President father, perhaps because being stupider than Jeb by a wide margin he was perceived as being a more malleable puppet, or perhaps some combination of these and other factors.

Even if Jeb had replaced Dubya and had actually become President in 2000 and still did what the PNAC wanted, I doubt he would've mismanaged it so badly. The PNAC may actually have succeeded in at least some of their goals, and while this would be bad for the world at large, the USA at least would be somewhat better off than it became under Dunya.

Theaetetus:
Are you sure she didn't swear an oath?

If you really were a lawyer (and it's obvious you are not), you would know the legal difference between swearing under oath in a court (or signing under the penalty of perjury) and swearing to something outside of a courtroom.

For one, you can go to jail if you lied.  For the other, you get called a liar (and maybe expelled from the school).

Weaver95: Tat'dGreaser: fredklein: Terrifying? Deeply personal? A guy stuck his pee pee in your hoo ha, against your will. Why is that any more "terrifying" than a man, say, having a loaded gun pointed at his head? Or a man being beaten half to death? (Or don't men's feelings count?)

What in the f*ck is wrong with you?

he's one of those 'pro-rape' guys I was referring to earlier.

I wouldn't say fredklein was pro-rape so much as he has an extreme case of what I sometimes call "Vulcanitis," going by things he's said in other threads.  He cranks ideas like "I am the captain of my soul" and "sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me" up to 11.

You see guys like this (they're usually, but not always, male) on the Internet a lot.  I'm not sure exactly why, but I speculate it has something to do with a fear of / inability to understand emotion and feelings correlating with an affinity for science and computers.

So anyway, for whatever it's worth, I think he's sincere.  I imagine that he honestly believes that if he were brutally raped, he'd just shrug off everything aside from the actual physical pain.

It's also been my experience that "Vulcans" like  fredklein get extremely belligerent and defensive when you call them on their nonsense, which is exactly what happened in the last thread where I tried to engage him.  It's like talking about emotions and feelings causes a panic reaction and they just start going apeshiat.

Sean M: /have had to counsel numerous women after being raped

And you sucked at it.  You know that, right?

fredklein:Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

Another entry in the "things I should never have had to say" list:

Just because a woman is promiscuous or a prostitute does not make it ok to rape her.

spiderpaz: FTA: "I'm mostly surprised at just how crazy it is, that they're willing to charge me with something just because my rapist is feeling uncomfortable. "

Until your alleged rapist becomes a convicted rapist, he has the same rights as everyone else.  It's called due process ... even though there are those that would throw that out the window and just castrate any man ever accused of rape without a trial or evidence of any sort.  I mean, I get that rapes are under-reported, and that when one DOES get reported, the accusation is most likely true, even though it is hard to get a conviction - but the blind frothing rage from some of the crazier farkies on here any time there's a "rape" thread is counter-productive.  It just makes you look crazy, and it seems like you don't have any respect for legal principles or the rights of defendants that human beings have fought for thousands of years to have.

8/10

This is how you do concern trolling, folks.  Bravo.

Cataholic: If I've learned anything from this thread, it's that all men either have raped someone or wish to rape someone or would rape someone given the chance, and that anyone who defends someone who probably did not rape someone is still a misogynist asshole because they are white-knighting someone who likely will rape or at the very least wants to rape someone.

I'm pretty sure that you have not, in fact, learned anything from this thread.

heili skrimsli: Genevieve Marie: Now be grateful that you had the privilege to be born in a world that doesn't demand the same of you and then blame you if you fail to be vigilant for a few hours and become a victim.

Hey dipshiat, I'm female and I still think you are batshiat insane paranoid if you're fearful of an elevator ride or you need to look over your shoulder in your makeup mirror just to make it down the street.

If you don't mind my asking a somewhat personal question, if you're female, why are you an intactivist?  That seems .... an odd choice of things for a woman to get so worked up about.

ks1415:  . . .  If anyone's wondering why there hasn't been a conviction, well...it's pretty clear there are people standing in the way of that.

Odd Catch-22 logic there.  Nobody does anything about the rape because if the accusation had a sound basis, someone would have done something about it.

/Sad.  And frustrating.

Genevieve Marie: For what it's worth, as much as that particular poster grated on me in this thread, I don't see any contradiction in being a woman and being opposed to circumcision. I'm mildly against it. I don't believe it's incredibly cruel or damaging or anything along those lines, I just tend to be wary of any elective surgery performed on someone for cosmetic purposes before that person is old enough to consent to what's happening to them.


Oh, sure, but there's a difference between saying, for example, "If I ever have any male children, I probably won't have them circumcised" and "GRAWR!  ZOMG THEy're multiatimng BABIES !!!!!111ty"

In a weird way it's a little like homophobia.  If you think gay marriage is bad, don't marry a gay person.  If you think gay sex is bad, don't have gay sex.  That's all fine.  But when you start getting red in the face and screaming about how homosexuality is disgusting end evil and is bringing about the downfall of America, you have a problem.  I could say nearly the same about the "Intactivists," the ones who get REALLY worked up about circumcision, and who want to pass laws outlawing it, etc.

(I refuse, by the way, to call circumcision "male circumcision" because there is no such thing as "female circumcision."   FGM is not in any way, shape, or form, comparable to circumcision.)


On a different note, one thing I find interesting about the kinds of people I call "Vulcans" (such as heili skrimsli and fredklein, to name two in this thread) is how often they'll claim to be calm, cool, and rational even when their actual behaviour is more like that unto a raging hell-beast of furiously redundant rage.  Compare, for example, heili skrimsli description of herself in her profile ("I am often overly rational in situations where people expect emotional responses") with what she says when people disagree with her ("Hey dipshiat, I'm female and I still think you are batshiat insane paranoid if you're fearful of an elevator ride or you need to look over your shoulder in your makeup mirror just to make it down the street").

The disconnect between how they THINK they act and how they ACTUALLY act is amazing.  I find the whole phenomenon of "Vulcanitis" fascinating.

MagSeven: ciberido: And yes, IANAL but I believe that the victim's physical arousal has been used by the defense in more than one rape case.

What does that stand for? I'm assuming it's like AFAIK (as far as I know) I can't really Google it at work...

IANAL = I Am Not A Lawyer.

I could have just as well said, "I may be wrong" or "I am no expert."

InitialCommentGuy: Theaetetus:
Gosh, you're so gracious. You realize that your current stance is itself slanderous? Or would be if anyone an ...

Wow.  That claim of being a lawyer is pretty slim when you fail this hard.  Any L1 would be able to tell you two things wrong with your idiocy on this specific quote, and three if they tried hard.

The quote you cut off before the next sentence? Let me guess, those things are addressed by said next sentence.

/or is it the pedantic "bu-bu-but this is  text so it's  libel!"? Because honestly, that's a distinction without teeth in this context
//good luck with the rest of your first year

OgreMagi: Theaetetus:
Are you sure she didn't swear an oath?

If you really were a lawyer (and it's obvious you are not), you would know the legal difference between swearing under oath in a court (or signing under the penalty of perjury) and swearing to something outside of a courtroom.

You're not a lawyer, so you can be forgiven for basing your knowledge on what you've seen on Boston Legal. Believe it or not, there are many, many places where you can be considered under oath and face penalty for perjury, even if it's outside of a courtroom. I engage in one of them almost daily, and I've only set foot in a courtroom once in my life.

Genevieve Marie: I just tend to be wary of any elective surgery performed on someone for cosmetic purposes before that person is old enough to consent to what's happening to them.

It also has some medical benefits, and we tend to mock people who are wary of other things with medical benefits being done on infants, like vaccinations.

Jesus you guys and gals are really sexually abusing this thread

ciberido: "Vulcans" like fredklein get extremely belligerent and defensive when you call them on their nonsense

...so, basically, anything I say in my defense (including this!) gets written off as belligerent nonsense. (Which is funny, as those are two words you wouldn't really use to describe Vulcans on Star Trek.)

ciberido: fredklein:Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

Another entry in the "things I should never have had to say" list:

Just because a woman is promiscuous or a prostitute does not make it ok to rape her.

I never said it did.

Weaver95: Dissociater: I'm not even sure what people are arguing about at this point...

basically there are two factions:

pro-rapists, who believe that rape isn't a 'real crime' and that the university shouldn't accommodate any whiny biatch who makes a claim of rape no matter what she says or does.   in their view, the university is completely justified in ignoring 67 cases of alleged rape and not giving those victims the benefit of the doubt.  the pro-rapists also honestly believe that a shoddy, student run 'honor system' (with no training or experience) is a great way to handle student allegations of rape and that all students who claim rape should be forced to use that system instead of going to the cops.  oh, and it goes without saying that complaining about how bad an idea all of the above is, should get you bounced from the university because rocking the boat and complaining about being treated badly by the university means you're an ungrateful asshole.

No one, other than actual rapists, are pro-rape and believing so only shows stupidity.

the anti-rapists, who believe the university should have found a better way to handle these claims of rape, and addressed the issue with the students and faculty to come up with a policy that acknowledged claims of rape and handled them with confidentiality and professionalism.  oh, and it goes without saying that the anti-rape crowd thinks rape is wrong and that we should stop blaming the victim(s).  the anti-rape faction is also largely horrified by the knuckle dragging dick holes who seem to think rape isn't a real crime and is torn between vomiting in disgust or trying to gently explain to the pro-rapists that they really shouldn't be pro-rape because rape is bad.

Again, why should the University have any involvement other than calling the police once they are made aware of the allegation?  Unless you can competently argue that the school is somehow negligible, complicit, enabled, or otherwise aided in the rape they should be a neutral third party, which they are.

fredklein: ciberido: "Vulcans" like fredklein get extremely belligerent and defensive when you call them on their nonsense

...so, basically, anything I say in my defense (including this!) gets written off as belligerent nonsense. (Which is funny, as those are two words you wouldn't really use to describe Vulcans on Star Trek.)


The thing about the Vulcans on Star Trek is that they CLAIM to lack emotions (or at least to have "mastered" them) and to operate on pure logic, but if you watch the shows long enough, you'll see that they ACTUALLY are nearly as controlled by their emotions as, say, your average human.  The real difference is that humans ADMIT how emotions generally control them, whereas Vulcans deny it.  That's why I think "Vulcan" is a reasonably apt term, at least until I think of a better one.

That you seem to think Vulcans really ARE paragons of logic and rationality is somewhat ironically funny, but not really surprising.

If you don't like an analogy with Star Trek, you could consider Jonathan Haidt's "rider and elephant" analogy.  Our logical rational conscious mind is riding an "elephant" (our emotions and intuitions).  We certain can hope to GUIDE our elephant, but we are not in absolute control and only fool ourselves with the conceit that we are.

In any case, if you think "Vulcan" is an inappropriate or unfair term, feel free to suggest an alternative.  As I have said several times, it's intended as a "temporary" or "placeholder" term until I think of something better.

As far as "your defense" goes, I would say you've already said enough in this thread already for us to form on conclusions.  I leave it to any third person reading this to go back in the thread and read what you've already written if they care that much about whether you are "really" what I've called a Vulcan or not.  Having already argued the point with you extensively in other threads, I have no intention of debating the point with you further.  Everything I could possibly say to try to convince you I have already said, and vice-versa.

Lastly, your insinuation that I'm being "unfair" to you by not giving you a chance to defend yourself is disingenuous considering that we had that argument AT LENGTH in another thread already.  Of course, you being a Vulcan, you're not self-aware enough to perceive your own disingenuousness.  Which is exactly why trying AGAIN to explain it to you would be a waste of time.

fredklein: ciberido: fredklein:Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

Another entry in the "things I should never have had to say" list:

Just because a woman is promiscuous or a prostitute does not make it ok to rape her.

I never said it did.

[images.wikia.com image 200x267]

Yes, actually, you did.  I even quoted you.  Feel free to go back and re-read what you wrote.

justinguarini4ever: It's sad that the problem of sexual assault on college campuses is not a problem that seems to be going away anytime soon.

Clearly, all men need to be banned from college campuses. It's the only way to be sure.

/oh, wait, 1/4 to 1/2 of lesbians report sexual assault or abuse by a FEMALE parner (Google is your friend) Of course the patriarchy is to blame!