I have repeatedly told my daughters that the world is basically a good place and people are basically good,

Really? I want to live where you do.

Where I am, the world is pretty shitty, and people are basically selfish and venal.

They were tried as juveniles.

Without the protections typically provided to juveniles in civilized jurisdictions, namely anonymity and nonpublic proceedings.

Which isn't really the point anyway, which is that they were held to adult standards of interpretation and judgment as to their peers' conduct and its meaning.

Which isn't really the point anyway, which is that they were held to adult standards of interpretation and judgment as to their peers' conduct and its meaning.

No they weren't, or they would be facing much harder sentences.

But, is anyone arguing we shouldn't teach girls (and boys) not to get fall-down drunk?

I think that the problem is that we're teaching them that it's a good, desirable thing.

16-year olds aren't even fully developed yet. Their pre-frontal cortexes (impulse control) are not fully formed. They are not adults in any sense, except they can somehow get plenty of booze, which appeals to their un-matured, un-fully-formed brain.

Why is that relevant? Most adult criminals have poor impulse control, and bad judgement.

As long as they have the ability to judge right from wrong, they can be tried for their crimes.

The Cypriot Parliament sent European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund officials back to the drawing board on Tuesday by rejecting their controversial bailout package, reported The New York Times.

The plan, which was arranged over the weekend, would have taxed bank depositors as part of austerity measures meant to offset Cyprus’ national debt — the tax on depositers a novel approach as reported by NYT.

The unprecedented move angered Moscow, presumably because rich Russians often take recourse in Cyprus’ reportedly loose tax laws and laxity on things like money-laundering, according to NYT.

But The Washington Post saidCyprus President Nicos Anastasiades tried to limit legislative opposition by getting the so-called “troika” of EU negotiators to agree not tax the first €20,000 in deposits, even though this means the government’s probably wouldn’t have been able to scrape up the €5.8 billion needed for a bailout.

But his own party decided not to vote on the measure on Tuesday, reported NYT, saying their abstention “virtually assured” it wouldn’t pass.

Banks in Cyprus have been closed for a national bank holiday since Monday, but reports say their doors could remain shut for several more days in order to stave off a potential bank run as concerns grow over the European Union’s troubled economy.

Analysts told NYT the European Central Bank may stop funding Cypriot banks if the EU measure failed.

No they weren't, or they would be facing much harder sentences.

Yes they were, or they couldn't have been convicted of the crime in the first place. Please try to follow along.

But, is anyone arguing we shouldn't teach girls (and boys) not to get fall-down drunk?

I think that the problem is that we're teaching them that it's a good, desirable thing.

Then you're a fruitbat.

Yes they were, or they couldn't have been convicted of the crime in the first place. Please try to follow along.

C'mon, read the freaking newspaper accounts.

One of the football players, Trent Mays, 17, who had been a quarterback, was sentenced to serve at least two years in the state juvenile system. The other, Ma’lik Richmond, 16, who had played wide receiver, was sentenced to serve at least one year. Both could end up in juvenile jail until they are 21, at the discretion of the State Department of Youth Services.

Mr. Mays’s minimum sentence is twice as long as Mr. Richmond’s because he was found to be delinquent beyond a reasonable doubt — the juvenile equivalent of guilty — not just of rape but also of distributing a nude image of a minor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/teenagers-found-guilty-in-rape-in-steubenville-ohio.html?pagewanted=all

They were tried as juveniles.

Where I am, the world is pretty shitty, and people are basically selfish and venal.

That you think it does not make it reality.

Of course, you do work in finance, so...

They were tried as juveniles.

Already acknowledged.

However, they weren't given the protections typically given to juvenile proceedings. Their names were made public, as were the contents of the proceedings.

Moreover, the legal element upon which their conviction turned was one calling for standards of judgment necessitating adulthood.

Where I am, the world is pretty shitty, and people are basically selfish and venal.

Sorry to hear that Snapper. The number of times I've been helped out by people who owed me absolutely nothing and who could get absolutely nothing in return always makes me think the best of society and rather optimistic about people generally. Are there exceptions? Of course. But those shitty exceptions - like Stuebenville - make the news not because they are common but for exactly the opposite reason.

...

I want to say this carefully because I really don't want to join the frequent anti-Catholicism comments here, from which you have taken an inordinate amount of ridiculous commentary, but I wonder how much the belief that man is born with original sin and needs the intervention of a savior feeds into what seems to me to be a fundamentally pessimistic view of people and the world in which we live.

Why is that relevant? Most adult criminals have poor impulse control, and bad judgement.

As long as they have the ability to judge right from wrong, they can be tried for their crimes.

That's why we hold adults to a greater responsibility and accountability and culpability. We hold they should be able to better control themselves (whether that has much basis is another thing).

Ability to control your impulses shouldn't be a factor? That's not what the law (or psychology) says.

Infants have uncontrollable bladders and bowels. Their ability to judge right from wrong doesn't come into it, and the ability of teenagers to judge right from wrong is not fully formed either--plus they deal with raging impulses. Impulse overrides that sense of right and wrong. Or as daniel kahneman might say: the thinking fast gets you into trouble before teh thinking slow can kick in. This is especially true with the young, whose brains are not fully formed, affecting their impulse control and their sense of right and wrong.

You actually believe that's irrelevant?

You know, with two young cats, a jigsaw puzzle is just not a workable idea.

Yeah, the problem is that nobody really sets out to drink until they are unconscious. To get really drunk sure. But unconscious is one of those things that by the time you know what has happened, it's too late.

Do you think those boys set out to do what they did?

Sorry to hear that Snapper. The number of times I've been helped out by people who owed me absolutely nothing and who could get absolutely nothing in return always makes me think the best of society and rather optimistic about people generally. Are there exceptions? Of course. But those shitty exceptions - like Stuebenville - make the news not because they are common but for exactly the opposite reason.

I want to say this carefully because I really don't want to join the frequent anti-Catholicism comments here, from which you have taken an inordinate amount of ridiculous commentary, but I wonder how much the belief that man is born with original sin and needs the intervention of a savior feeds into what seems to me to be a fundamentally pessimistic view of people and the world in which we live.

I don't think it's a factor. I was a Catholic long before I became a pessimist.

I'm not saying that people don't do good, they do good all the time. I'm saying people aren't good. They'll do a wonderful charitable think one day, and then turn around and do an evil thing the next.

Yeah, the problem is that nobody really sets out to drink until they are unconscious. To get really drunk sure. But unconscious is one of those things that by the time you know what has happened, it's too late.

Do you think those boys set out to do what they did?

Non sequitur. They may or may not have set out to do what they did. They however, did make a very conscious and voluntary decision when they did commit those acts.

Were they drinking? If they had been, would it matter to your way of thinking?

That's why we hold adults to a greater responsibility and accountability and culpability. We hold they should be able to better control themselves (whether that has much basis is another thing).

Ability to control your impulses shouldn't be a factor? That's not what the law (or psychology) says.

Infants have uncontrollable bladders and bowels. Their ability to judge right from wrong doesn't come into it, and the ability of teenagers to judge right from wrong is not fully formed either--plus they deal with raging impulses. Impulse overrides that sense of right and wrong. Or as daniel kahneman might say: the thinking fast gets you into trouble before teh thinking slow can kick in. This is especially true with the young, whose brains are not fully formed, affecting their impulse control and their sense of right and wrong.

You actually believe that's irrelevant?

If they know right from wrong, yes it's irrelevant. Not being able to control your evil impulses makes you a sociopath, not innocent.

They however, did make a very conscious and voluntary decision when they did commit those acts.

That's all well and good, except for the fact that their acts didn't get them in trouble. Not properly interpreting the victim's capacity to consent did. And that was anything but "conscious and voluntary."

I said I only want to use my hands. Obviously these young fellows are absolutely begging for a good thrashing from my educated fists given their heinous actions, so how much of a reduction in prosecutorial charges should I be entitled to given that they're clearly leading me on?

Actually, provocation does matter in terms of the severity of sentencing in assault cases. If it's significant enough, it can even absolve guilt. If you could actually demonstrate that their behavior was the sort that generally and reasonably provokes violence, that would probably help you.

Someone fists your ass against your will and maybe you'll feel a little bit raped too.

As opposed to if someone actually raped me and I felt "just-plain-raped" rather than "a little bit," you mean? Not to mention that a fist is generally quite a bit larger than a penis, while a finger is quite a bit smaller.

And really, that's what's so obnoxious about this whole discussion, both here and in the media at large. It's always the presumed weaker person who is supposed to shoulder some blame, and naturally that person is never in the dominant group that sits back and tut-tuts that they really should be more careful.

Welcome to the real world, where things aren't always fair. I would rather acknowledge that reality than be unsafe.

If someone rear-ends me and I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I'm more likely to be injured. I didn't act with the greatest degree of responsibility. It's still just as much the other guy's fault; my culpability is additive, not subtractive. He doesn't get absolved of anything.

You can run your mouths about how these girls are shouldering blame for being victims of assault but you'll be quick to cry for the comforting embrace of Big Government if someone beats your ass because you weren't sufficiently demure, didn't yield on the sidewalk, flashed too much cash, or did any of a thousand factors every bit as mitigating to your own assault as having too many drinks with friends or wearing a tank top is for women.

I've never been sexually assaulted, but I did have an incident where a couple of older kids asked me to follow them into an alley when I was 11 or so. I was just a little too trusting, in part because, as a relatively big kid growing up in a safe neighborhood, I never really thought of myself as a victim. They threw me on the ground and punched and kicked me a few times before letting me go. They didn't take money or anything. To this day, I have no idea why they picked me.

The idea that I was foolish enough to follow them into an alley doesn't make them any less guilty. But I was foolish, and it would do me no service to pretend that I didn't do anything that contributed to the events of that day.

"If they know right from wrong, yes it's irrelevant. Not being able to control your evil impulses makes you a sociopath, not innocent."

It also makes you a person whose prefrontal cortex has not yet fully developed, which, again, has also to do with controlling good and evil. You go through the trouble of extensively quoting me, then just ignore the entire thing.

It also makes you a person whose prefrontal cortex has not yet fully developed, which, again, has also to do with controlling good and evil. You go through the trouble of extensively quoting me, then just ignore the entire thing.

I'm not ignoring you, I simply don't care.

99.9% of teenage males can control their impulses enough not to rape anybody. Those that can't are criminals.

Poor impulse control has never, and can never be a defense against criminal charges. The worst sociopaths are the ones with the least control, and the most in need of being incarcerated.

If a teenager can't control his impulses to commit violent crimes, he belongs in jail.

Not every parent does this, and so the thought that "well we tried and just telling boys not to rape girls doesn't work" is ridiculous. There is still parts of the world (pools of nasty) where rape is not really rape, unless maybe it involves a knife or something and that is what the evil feminists and liberals are trying to eliminate, and if we offend Sam and a few others, well gosh that is too darn bad. If it makes woman safer then I am OK with ticking off Sam.

Well I'm glad you big strong men are up there to keep them little ladies safe and sound, Father.

"I'm not ignoring you, I simply don't care."

Well, then your quoting me was a joke.

Sociopath? You keep using that word, as if it resolves the issue some way or other. Are people responsible for being sociopath. Or is that just another way of copping out of saying "evil".

So, what does that say about a teenage females lack of impulse control? Or very young children? Or babies? Or dogs?

This lack of impulse control I speak of, btw, is not psychological--it's organic.

If none of that matters, though, if you held that the ability to control impulses or acting wrt good and evil didn't matter, that would be an truly interesting position to take. How would you justify holding someone accountable--either legally or morally?

Well I'm glad you big strong men are up there to keep them little ladies safe and sound, Father.

Are those the same ladies that how dare you insinuate they are not fully equal?

If they know right from wrong, yes it's irrelevant. Not being able to control your evil impulses makes you a sociopath, not innocent.

Beg the question much? If their brains aren't functioning properly, then they can not "know right from wrong" but ####### definition, you git. This is why I routinely punch you in the nuts. The question is "are brains of this physical development state capable of proper moral reasoning, in any real extent." Your answer simply avoids the question and posits a world of gods and monsters, because you like it better that way.

Well, then your quoting me was a joke.

I was responding to you. I don't need to agree to respond.

Sociopath? You keep using that word, as if it resolves the issue some way or other. Are people responsible for being sociopath. Or is that just another way of copping out of saying "evil".

So, what does that say about a teenage females lack of impulse control? Or very young children? Or babies? Or dogs?

This lack of impulse control I speak of, btw, is not psychological--it's organic.

If none of that matters, though, if you held that the ability to control impulses or acting wrt good and evil didn't matter, that would be an truly interesting position to take. How would you justify holding someone accountable--either legally or morally?

Very young children, babies and dogs don't know right from wrong. They can not make a moral judgement.

The ability to judge right from wrong is a precursor to moral action. If you don't know an act is wrong, you can't act immorally.

Once the person knows right from wrong, like teenagers, they are capable of moral action, and criminal action. If a person has no ability to control their impulses, they are insane, and need to be institutionalized.

The fact that someone, of whatever age, has more or less ability controlling their negative impulses doesn't reflect on morality or criminality. Of course this trait, like every other trait will vary among humans.

As long as the personal can control their impulses (i.e. they are not insane) they are morally required to do so, and criminally liable if they don't.

Very young children, babies and dogs don't know right from wrong. They can not make a moral judgement.

At what point do very young children magically acquire this superpower of moral reasoning? Twelve? Thirteen. Puberty or the bah mitzvah?

Beg the question much? If their brains aren't functioning properly, then they can not "know right from wrong" but ####### definition, you git. This is why I routinely punch you in the nuts. The question is "are brains of this physical development state capable of proper moral reasoning, in any real extent." Your answer simply avoids the question and posits a world of gods and monsters, because you like it better that way.

Are you serious? You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

99.9% of 16 y.o. males don't rape anyone. They can control their impulses. If these boys can't, they are either insane, or criminals. In either case they need to be locked up.

At what point do very young children magically acquire this superpower of moral reasoning? Twelve? Thirteen. Puberty or the bah mitzvah?

It depends on the moral issue at hand. Children as young as 5 or 6 know some things are right and some are wrong. Children know stealing and killing are wrong at a very young age.

You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

You're asking the wrong question. I'm sure the two Ohio kids knew "rape" was "wrong." However, because of their age, they were unable to make the nuanced judgments separating "consent" from something less in the circumstances in which they found themselves adjudged.

Are you serious? You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

Not really. But I'm not going to sit idly by while you commit fallacy after fallacy just because you think it makes your farts smell pretty. You're begging the question. That's unacceptable form. Don't do that.

To the point of the Ohio case, as I've said earlier, I believe the testimony of the defendant who said he didn't think he was committing rape at the time. That doesn't mean he wasn't, legally or morally, but when he says he didn't think what he was doing was rape, I believe he is telling the truth. Because I'm not out for blood retribution like some of us.

In completely unrelated news this review of Tom Nagel's new book is fascinating and means I will almost certainly go out and buy it.

I said I only want to use my hands. Obviously these young fellows are absolutely begging for a good thrashing from my educated fists given their heinous actions, so how much of a reduction in prosecutorial charges should I be entitled to given that they're clearly leading me on?

Actually, provocation does matter in terms of the severity of sentencing in assault cases.

So answer my question. These two "yutes" are clearly asking for a good hiding, so how much deference should I be granted by the state? I don't want to even pistol-whip them or anything. Just a routine beatdown, maybe choke one out and take some amusing photos of his unconscious carcass after I've stripped him. Seriously, I don't want to permanently hurt the guy.

Someone fists your ass against your will and maybe you'll feel a little bit raped too.

As opposed to if someone actually raped me and I felt "just-plain-raped" rather than "a little bit," you mean?

You tell me. How much fist has to enter your unwilling ass before you personally felt raped?

Not to mention that a fist is generally quite a bit larger than a penis, while a finger is quite a bit smaller.

So how many fingers up your ass triggers your rape alarm? Does the involvement of a thumb change the calculus? Would a man with a finger-sized penis be incapable of raping you?

And really, that's what's so obnoxious about this whole discussion, both here and in the media at large. It's always the presumed weaker person who is supposed to shoulder some blame, and naturally that person is never in the dominant group that sits back and tut-tuts that they really should be more careful.

Welcome to the real world, where things aren't always fair. I would rather acknowledge that reality than be unsafe.

Would you acknowledge your reality by refusing to press charges if you ever gotten drunk and were unexpectedly sodomized by Mr. Fingerdick? In other words, is your opinion bolstered by your comparatively protected status, and would it change were you suddenly subject to the same standards and the unprotected classes?

If someone rear-ends me and I'm not wearing my seatbelt, I'm more likely to be injured. I didn't act with the greatest degree of responsibility. It's still just as much the other guy's fault; my culpability is additive, not subtractive. He doesn't get absolved of anything.

I believe in some states whether or not you're wearing a seatbelt does factor into assigning culpability for injury, but I'm no lawyer.

Are you asking to be rear-ended for kicks if you aren't? A video of your face bouncing off the steering wheel could be pretty funny. I mean, you'd need to be paid for the dented bumper.

I've never been sexually assaulted

It doesn't have to be sexual assault. Just get really drunk and instead of sodomizing you someone could put the boots to you. Drunks frequently enjoy a good stomping; both John L Sullivan and Jake Killrain drank alcohol between rounds of the last bare-knuckle championship fight in 1887. You're totally asking for it.

They threw me on the ground and punched and kicked me a few times before letting me go. They didn't take money or anything. To this day, I have no idea why they picked me.

I'm sure you were asking for it. You're lucky they didn't stick a finger in your ass. Maybe two.

The idea that I was foolish enough to follow them into an alley doesn't make them any less guilty. But I was foolish, and it would do me no service to pretend that I didn't do anything that contributed to the events of that day.

And these two teenage rapists are clearly contributing to any future assaults they might be on the receiving end of in their future as a result of their own foolishness. So are the kids who tweeted about it and passed around photos. And the ones who refused to talk to the police about the assault. You wouldn't fault anyone who decided to teach them a valuable lesson on the sanctity of personal space would you? I mean, clearly they're somewhat responsible for any future attacks on their person, there's no real reason to think otherwise. If people need to take responsibility for inducement to assault, I want to make sure the standards are applied uniformly and not just to the least empowered.

So how much reduction in prosecutorial zeal are we decent folk entitled to here?

Where I am, the world is pretty shitty, and people are basically selfish and venal.

Seriously: that is a very sad thing to say. I wish you peace and warmth.

Are you serious? You want to argue that 16-17 y.o.'s aren't mentally capable of knowing rape is wrong?

Maybe their lawyer should have used that as a defense. His client didn't realize there was anything wrong with his actions - why just look at his prefrontal cortex, the poor little wrinkled lump.

To the point of the Ohio case, as I've said earlier, I believe the testimony of the defendant who said he didn't think he was committing rape at the time. That doesn't mean he wasn't, legally or morally, but when he says he didn't think what he was doing was rape, I believe he is telling the truth.

I believe he was lying. Your move, Francis.

Would you acknowledge your reality by refusing to press charges if you ever gotten drunk and were unexpectedly sodomized by Mr. Fingerdick? In other words, is your opinion bolstered by your comparatively protected status, and would it change were you suddenly subject to the same standards and the unprotected classes?

Does this ranting drivel make sense to anyone else? It's just incoherent blather to me. It makes no sense as English.

I believe he was lying. Your move, Francis.

Then we disagree and you are free to run around measuring your dick to the world by talking about how badly you want to beat up a teenager, I guess. Congratulations on that.

I was responding to you. I don't need to agree to respond.

Ignoring the substance of what someone posted, of what you quoted, is not a real sense a response.

Very young children, babies and dogs don't know right from wrong. They can not make a moral judgement.

That’s not what people who study babies and children tell us.

Once the person knows right from wrong, like teenagers, they are capable of moral action, and criminal action. If a person has no ability to control their impulses, they are insane, and need to be institutionalized.

Where are you getting this stuff? “No ability”? Who said that? And who said that is the definition of insanity?

The fact that someone, of whatever age, has more or less ability controlling their negative impulses doesn't reflect on morality or criminality.

That does reflect on morality and certainly on criminal culpability—you could look it up.

Of course this trait, like every other trait will vary among humans.

As long as the personal can control their impulses (i.e. they are not insane) they are morally required to do so, and criminally liable if they don't.

You don’t have nearly the prisons to house everyone who is lacking in impulse control

Edit and kill the italics, Morty.

In completely unrelated news this review of Tom Nagel's new book is fascinating and means I will almost certainly go out and buy it.

H. Allen Orr in The New York Review of Books also gave it studious perusal.

2 fingers is rape. 1 finger is just "rapey".

Babies know the difference between right and wrong

Does this ranting drivel make sense to anyone else? It's just incoherent blather to me. It makes no sense as English.

Sounds like you traded your developed prefrontal cortex for an underdeveloped cingulate cortex.

Then we disagree and you are free to run around measuring your dick to the world by talking about how badly you want to beat up a teenager, I guess. Congratulations on that.

You aren't inciting me to assault by being a loudmouth internet nancy-boy are you? Because that would totally be asking for a hiding. You really need to be more careful.

2 fingers is rape. 1 finger is just "rapey".

What if it was one of Johnny Bench's fingers? Even his pinky looks like a bratwurst.

So answer my question. These two "yutes" are clearly asking for a good hiding, so how much deference should I be granted by the state?

Zero as you describe it. I don't place any value in your idea of provocation, the same way "she was wearing a tight skirt" or "she drank a lot" isn't provocation that should give a rapist deference.

If you were present at the moment the act was about to be committed and acted in defense of the victim, quite a bit.

You tell me. How much fist has to enter your unwilling ass before you personally felt raped?

Depends on how many drinks I've had.

Seriously? I'm not really equipped to answer that question, seeing as I have a complete lack of personal experience. I speculate that I'd call anything other than a phallic device an assault or violation, rather than rape. I would rather be raped than assaulted with something particularly large or violent.

Would you acknowledge your reality by refusing to press charges if you ever gotten drunk and were unexpectedly sodomized by Mr. Fingerdick? In other words, is your opinion bolstered by your comparatively protected status, and would it change were you suddenly subject to the same standards and the unprotected classes?

No, I would press charges. And I would expect justice. And I would deserve it. Yet I would take responsibility for making myself vulnerable enough to be in that situation in the first place and learn from it, and I'd suggest to other people before they were similarly victimized that they avoid placing themselves in comparable vulnerability. And I'd make sure not to provide a drop less sympathy to the victims of similar assaults, whether they contributed to the risk or not.

This is exactly the same standard I would have for a rape victim.

Are you asking to be rear-ended for kicks if you aren't? A video of your face bouncing off the steering wheel could be pretty funny. I mean, you'd need to be paid for the dented bumper.

You're arguing with a totally different position than the one I am taking. "Asking for it" never entered the equation. If I walk through the center of Manhattan at night with fistfuls of hundred dollar bills and my eyes closed, I'm not "asking" to be robbed. The robbers don't get some lesser sentence because I placed myself at more risk than I should have. I didn't deserve the robbery.

But I could have helped myself by exercising more care. I would advise someone not to behave that way. I think it's crappy that we live in a world where you can't just do that; nobody has a right to rob even the most careless person. But I'm not going to say that acknowledging that fact is blaming the victim.

You wouldn't fault anyone who decided to teach them a valuable lesson on the sanctity of personal space would you?

What, are you thick? I would absolutely fault someone who assaulted another person, even if they claimed provocation. Just like the rapists are absolutely faulted no matter how tight her dress was or how low her top was.

Just curious how many of the people commenting have seen this video?

And then, even better, let's call them "trash" and "sub-human" and "rapist,"

Yeah, let's not call people who rape people "rapists". That would be mean.

Since several posters think legal definitions are paramount here in describing what happened, through 2011 the FBI, in compiling their annual crime statistics, would not have considered what happened in Steubenville as rape.

Denominating all forms of sexual assault and misconduct "rape" isn't just mean, it's really, really dumb and stupid.

Which is why nobody here has done that. See also discussion on previous pages about penetration.

I don't know if it's dumb and stupid, but it's exactly what people have been doing throughout the thread.

Taken by itself, hard core porn has little to commend it and society is worse off because of its widespread, easy availablity. Among other things, much of it is extremely degrading to and objectfying of, women.

Whereas the depiction of men isn't?

And Jack 1551 is absurd and completely refuted by pretty every study on the issue ever done. Men are much more likely to be sexual predators than woman. Whether it is genetic, societal, or what is semi-irrelevant - thems the facts, even if you and your friends are statistical anomalies and what you wrote is true.

I don't know which applies here: 1) You know nothing, 2) You're trying to cover knowing nothing by skewing context, but without being particularly aware of that, 3) You've done no research and are talking out of your ass once again, or 4) You're being willfully stupid. Given your posting in the last couple of months it's not at all clear what you're up to, here.

Someone who would find me contemptible for being unreceptive to misogyny is someone whose respect I'm probably not all that interested in having in the first place.

You smear Sam, then smear him again by conjoining two words he used to mean something else entirely, and you do it yet again here by directly implying he's misogynistic. It's not a rhetorical approach deserving of respect.

And the idea that she consented to this seems preposterous to me.

That's not the legal standard -- and here I'm using the prosecutor's own description.(*) She said the charge required the defendants knowing the victim didn't have the capacity to consent.

Based on the linked article "preposterous" is strong. It's easier to imagine the girl consented to some of what happened, and was unconscious or incapable of consenting to other things. It seems unlikely she consented to everything that happened based on the article. If anything is clear it's that the two boys are immoral little shits. Just because a girl is capable of consenting doesn't mean you have sex with her.