Reply With QuoteGod help you matey, I'm English. 8)Originally Posted by Lokust
God help you matey, I'm English. 8)
What's next? Ronald Reagan for President? Oh wait.... :P
- Alan
The irony is that he's actually used to be known as a serious newsman; the ratings as the talk show got sleazier and sleazier corrupted him, more or less. Now he's trying to go back to the serious guy angle.
Which will probably lose him the election. If he'd run as a Ventura-style populist, he'd be a shoo-in.
Jerry! Jerry! Jerry! *throws chair*
I actually have a lot of respect for the man, he is a clever showman and, more important than that he is aware of the fact that his programme is merely for entertainment. A sharp contrast to the shit we get on English telly that does its best to imitate but also to reform and enlighten and, worse of all to educate. Fuck you Trisha.
Yeah, Springer would be much worse than all of those super qualified, hyper intelligent, think-of-the-country-first folks we currently have in the Senate.
That said I heard an interview with Springer on the radio not too long ago, can't remember who was interviewing him (I was changing stations a lot on a road trip), and he commented that everyone who makes over a certain amount (it was pretty low, although in the current high tax bracket) "owed" the government half of what they make. It was the old "they don't need all that money to live well" argument. I'm sure that will endear him to many here. ;)
Jerry Springer is best known in Ohio as the vice-mayor of Cincinnati who paid a whore with a check. A check that bounced. But it has been so many years, that little story now makes him endearing to alot of people. Ohio senate choices are so bleak, why not Jerry?
If northern Ohio voters could vote in the likes Kucinich and Traficant, Jerry has a chance.
Chet
A clear case of rape.
Heh... that's an interesting point.A clear case of rape.
If rape is defined as sexual intercourse against the will of one or more of the parties, and a whore is defined as a woman whose will is decided by proper payment, then that DOES constitute rape.
This is equivalent to sex with a woman while she is drunk (when the woman would not have sex while not drunk)... in both cases she is deceived into sex.
I dunno man, it's just a really old joke.Heh... that's an interesting point.A clear case of rape.
If rape is defined as sexual intercourse against the will of one or more of the parties, and a whore is defined as a woman whose will is decided by proper payment, then that DOES constitute rape.
This is equivalent to sex with a woman while she is drunk (when the woman would not have sex while not drunk)... in both cases she is deceived into sex.
Did you hear about the prostitute that got raped last night?
The check bounced.
Doesn't make it any less true. I think she could have a case.
A check bouncing on a hooker does not constitute rape (and belittles the fate of those who have actually been raped.) Rape requires some form of force or serious threat.Doesn't make it any less true. I think she could have a case.
After checking the law, you are of course right. I think it should be, though. Or something similar.
Ok, so what do you call drugging someone and then having sex with them? I mean, it didn't require force or serious threat, correct?
If you want to avoid "belittling" then just have a couple different types of rape... Type A = Force and Type B = Deceit.
Oh jeez. Look, I don't mean to interrupt while you wax lyrical about the time you lost your virginity, Brian, but if you can't see forcing yourself upon a drugged out, nonconsensual vagina as an act of force, I think we're going to have to confiscate your "Sieve" as the next drastic, probaby futile step in your treatment.Ok, so what do you call drugging someone and then having sex with them? I mean, it didn't require force or serious threat, correct?
{Carefully slides the hot wax away from DrCrypt and the unsuspecting "girlfriend" below him}...
Based on this treatment of the English language I wonder if they'll let you back into the States. Perhaps only with the caveat that you go to class regularly and aren't allowed to sit behind your girlfriend.
DrCrypt objects: But, but, I won't get distracted! I can multitask!
{Carefully slides the absinthe away}
In order for a rape to qualify as forced there MUST be physical resistance. If a woman is sufficiently drugged, she does not physically resist the sex. The rape is a matter of deceit and not of force at that point.
Bouncing a check to a prostitute is just another kind of the same thing. The prostitute would not have sex with you if she knew you didn't have a means and will to pay. Therefore you are having sex with her *against her will*.
Here's another example of rape by deceit...
Lets say you visit your neighborhood plastic surgeon and walk away with Brad Pitt's face, and furthermore your body can be passed off as Brad Pitt's.
Now you tell women you're Brad Pitt, and they have sex with you. That's rape.
Or are you going to say it isn't rape because while portraying Brad Pitt you aren't forcing yourself on them?
You're a fucking idiot, Brian.
{Bows before The Winner, aka Met_K, as he moves to 600%}
It's like deja vu all over again.
Brian, between your frenzied reverie about the time you lost your virginity by the stealthy plan of drugging a girl, and then the frenzied reverie where you relate the manner in which you followed that up by tricking a girl into bed with a "Fight Club" Halloween mask, I'm not quite sure exactly what you are trying to say. Are you looking for my condonment? Okay, I approve - hey, you got little enough to work with, more power to you - but I'm pretty sure the law doesn't take into account illegal financial arrangements (ie: bounced check) or a girl's stupidity (ie: pretending to be Brad Pitt) when gauging rape cases.
Because, if the latter, objectively how would that work? If that were the case, you'd be under inditement for raping every girl you've ever slept with, since you were clearly taking advantage of someone who musta been pretty retarded. If the former, you are legally condoning prostitution and equating the most dastardly crime short of murder to the sort of muffed financial skills that rent-to-own agencies thrive upon.
Either way, that doesn't even begin to explain away the fact that forcing yourself upon somebody by drugging them is obviously a hell of a lot different than the sort of understandable chain of events that could lead someone into bouncing a check.
Also, could you explain the gag to me about "not letting me back into the States"? It sort of flies in the face of the general consensus that people in America speak English a hell of a lot more poorly than people in the British Isles. Or was that some sort of compliment, seeing as how the sentence you were criticising is grammatically correct?
{Carefully slides the hot wax away from DrCrypt and the unsuspecting "girlfriend" below him}...
Based on this treatment of the English language I wonder if they'll let you back into the States. Perhaps only with the caveat that you go to class regularly and aren't allowed to sit behind your girlfriend.
DrCrypt objects: But, but, I won't get distracted! I can multitask!
{Carefully slides the absinthe away}
In order for a rape to qualify as forced there MUST be physical resistance. If a woman is sufficiently drugged, she does not physically resist the sex. The rape is a matter of deceit and not of force at that point.
Bouncing a check to a prostitute is just another kind of the same thing. The prostitute would not have sex with you if she knew you didn't have a means and will to pay. Therefore you are having sex with her *against her will*.
Here's another example of rape by deceit...
Lets say you visit your neighborhood plastic surgeon and walk away with Brad Pitt's face, and furthermore your body can be passed off as Brad Pitt's.
Now you tell women you're Brad Pitt, and they have sex with you. That's rape.
Or are you going to say it isn't rape because while portraying Brad Pitt you aren't forcing yourself on them?
If you really believe what you're saying, and you don't see the difference in calling a hooker not getting paid being called rape and someone being drugged and raped - or someone who thinks they're having sex with a movie star and then finding out they aren't is rape - you're just too far gone for me to try to have a discussion with you. Rape is not willingly having sex and then being dissapointed with the results. Nor is it having sex for the wrong reasons ("you said you were the captain of the football team!" or "but you said you loved me!")
All I'll say is that anyone who has actually worked with rape victims would have nothing but derision for your glib definitions.
The concept (per jeff lackey) of rape as not describing an act, a logical category, but rather a degree or type of pain and moral status, is wrong. By that reasoning (pardon the language since there's nothing reasonable about it) Holocaust victims weren't murdered... they deserve their own WORD. I'll make one up now to please jeff... they were schnfritzled.
The theft of a priceless jewel versus the theft of a tin ring? Both theft, according to me. Obviously jeff lackey must be consulted on the matter for his moral high-road opinion...
Jeff Lackey: They must be different words! Forced Rape is too torturous, too painful, too horrific... by God it deserves its own category! How dare you... you... *MAN* say otherwise!
Moving on to DrCrypt...
Wow, the Brian jokes were actually funny this time AND did not comprise the entire post. Despite this seeming like it must be an imposter (perhaps its his girlfriend posting with only 4 inches of DrCrypt present) and not the real DrCrypt I'll continue...
Stupidity is a matter of self-deception and thus does not constitute a crime of the other party. Otherwise your position mirrors jeff lackey's and thus I'll just say ditto.
Sure... not all rape is equal. But that doesn't imply that only one type of rape exists.
Level 0 is that it doesn't take Force to have sex with a drugged woman. She's compliant. So you're misusing the word "force".
Level 1 is that you live in Ireland, you reference many non-US things, and you've fantasized (probably for effect) about either harems or bordellos of "underage" Asian girls. You're an Exile in at least one way. A disaffected. A critic. A rebel. Its sort of like the words I might have for someone who currently lives in the US who answers "Anywhere but here" to "Which country would you like to be in?"
I assume you have not found what you're looking for, yet.
This is the wierdest topic drift I've ever seen.
Want me to reference Revolutionary Girl Utena if I jump into the debate? Because I think I possibly could.
This is what underlies my position as well...
A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm.
Deceitful rape is no different from forced rape in the sense that in both cases the woman does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm.
Forced is simply strongarming the situation, while deceit is fooling the woman into accepting you... by the examples provided either dulling her consciousness, pretending to have money, or creating a false identity for yourself.
But again, fundamentally, they are the same. A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm. All latter cases instigated by the participating man are rape.
You're a wierdo.
you're a freaking moron koontz. It's called fraud, not rape. fraudulent payment for services rendered.
Jezus freaking christ, you made me agree with xpav.
I guess there's a first time for everything.
Though his adversaries did not yet realize it, the most respected thinker on the board, by far, had a significant upper hand in the argument. Every plastic surgeon he'd contacted, too many even for Koontz to count, had clearly informed him that altering his face and body to look like Brad Pitt was "not a possibility." Even the second and third most respected thinkers on the board would realize that the only possible reason for this denial was that such a transformation would lead to legal troubles. Surely, it was not a question of bravery.
As for the second and third most respected thinkers on the board, Brian was on the case. His calculations - which involved counting the total number of views each thread had received and then multiplying the results by the number of forums in which these threads had appeared - were almost complete. Preliminary results showed Cleve a front-runner for the second spot, while SpoofyChop was an almost-certain third.
Posting Permissions
