Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, February 28, 2013

[OTP - March] Scott wants money for spring training teams

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Tripon Posted: February 28, 2013 at 02:05 PM | 2909 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball, florida, ot, politics, spring training

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 14 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›
   1301. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4391467)

Yes, and a non-violent act is much less of an offense than a violent act.


Hmmm. Killing someone with an injection while they're asleep, or by turning on the gas, or by poisoning their food or drink, is much less of an offense than shooting or knifing them?

Very interesting.
   1302. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4391468)
How, exactly, am I to determine the fairness or lack thereof of the punishment, barring access to the actual trial?

See my edit: Forget it, then. But I'm still curious of your overall meta point, if you wish to answer that.


Rape is violent by its very nature.
No, it's not. That's a fiction. A mildly-useful fiction, but a fiction nonetheless.


Oh, Armond. How foolish we've all been.

   1303. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4391469)
High school kids have been getting drunk and hooking up for decades. High school and college girls have gotten themselves drunk so as to become less sexually inhibited for decades, which often results in quite intended sexually-related activity. This episode seems to have mildly crossed an extremely blurred line. It really wasn't close to "barbaric."

And this is not that. This is not two kids "hooking up" and someone is drunk, and there's a he-said/she-said. We've discussed those kind of case, and I've shown a lot of sympathy for the accused.

In this case, it's two separate men violating an unconscious woman, while others look on and take video. They even transported her to another location.

Repost for flip

   1304. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4391470)
They carried her passed out around the room like an animal on display, violated her, took her outside in just a bra, photographed her vomiting while offering no assistance and debated whether they should urinate on her. All this is not in dispute. perhaps our definitions of barbarism differ.

Oh my God, this gets worse every page. Are people still defending this sub-human trash?

10 years maximum security seems about right.
   1305. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4391472)
And this is not that.

In its essence, this is exactly what this is.

while others look on and take video. They even transported her to another location.

Bemoanable as a cultural and behavioral artifact, irrelevant to just punishment for the non-consensual digital penetration.
   1306. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:16 PM (#4391473)
10 years maximum security seems about right.


If the purpose of the criminal justice system was to make sure snapper's moral outrage meter was properly kowtowed to, perhaps. The criminal justice system is not your personal vengeance seeking device.
   1307. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:17 PM (#4391477)
Are people still defending this sub-human trash?

And with that, Snapper is now officially OFFENDED.
   1308. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4391479)
Bemoanable as a cultural and behavioral artifact, irrelevant to just punishment for the non-consensual digital penetration.

No, it points out pretty clearly that this is not a romantic interlude between two drunk but consenting teenagers.

The criminal justice system is not your personal vengeance seeking device.

No, it is society's device for justice, retribution, and deterrance. 10 years still seems about right (You do realized a 10-year sentence doesn't mean you serve 10 years? It's more likely to be 5-6 with good-behavior/parole).
   1309. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:19 PM (#4391480)
But I'm still curious of your overall meta point, if you wish to answer that.


I am interested in getting you liberals to dial down the irrational outrage machine in order to create a functional societal response to these sorts of things. Pretending that the victim, by dint of being victimized, has no moral or practical responsibility for herself and the situation in general, doesn't help. Pretending that fingering molestation and videotaping a drunk puking herself is equivalent to violent, forcible rape doesn't help.
   1310. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4391482)
Hmmm. Killing someone with an injection while they're asleep, or by turning on the gas, or by poisoning their food or drink, is much less of an offense than shooting or knifing them?


As Crosby said, nobody is saying that it's good.

I'd certainly *much* rather be killed with an injection in my sleep than stabbed to death in the stomach. But the former is still much less than, uh, ideal.
   1311. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4391483)
No, it is society's device for justice, retribution, and deterrance. 10 years still seems about right.


I'll note you don't mention rehabilitation in your list of the system's purposes, and comment that you being you, of course you don't.

The criminal justice system is not a retribution seeking machine. At least, it shouldn't be. To wish it were is barbaric.
   1312. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:20 PM (#4391484)
And with that, Snapper is now officially OFFENDED.

Well, if you're not offended by this kind of behavior, there's something seriously wrong with your moral compass.
   1313. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:21 PM (#4391485)
Deadspin catchall post

Link has pics, screenshots of realtime tweets and link to the video shot, and courtroom reports from media sources.

"At that third party, the girl could not walk on her own and vomited several times before toppling onto her side, several witnesses testified. Mays then tried to coerce the girl into giving him oral sex, but the girl was unresponsive, according to the player who videotaped Mays and the girl.

The player said he did not try to stop it because "at the time, no one really saw it as being forceful."

At one point, the girl was on the ground, naked, unmoving and silent, according to two witnesses who testified. Mays, they said, had exposed himself while he was right next to her.

Richmond was behind her, with his hands between her legs, penetrating her with his fingers, a witness said.

"I tried to tell Trent to stop it," another athlete, who was Mays's best friend, testified. "You know, I told him, ‘Just wait — wait till she wakes up if you're going to do any of this stuff. Don't do anything you're going to regret.' "

He said Mays answered: "It's all right. Don't worry."

That boy took a photograph of what Mays and Richmond were doing to the girl. He explained in court how he wanted her to know what had happened to her, but he deleted it from his phone, he testified, after showing it to several people."

   1314. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:22 PM (#4391488)
Pretending that fingering molestation and videotaping a drunk puking herself is equivalent to violent, forcible rape doesn't help.


Whether it or isn't, the law might not agree, again depending on jurisdiction. As a reporter I heard any number of jury instructions admonishing jurors that digital penetration was as much rape as any other sort of penetration.

I might be wrong, but my impression is that the Arkansas Criminal Code wasn't crafted by a bunch of liberal feminists.
   1315. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:24 PM (#4391490)
I'll note you don't mention rehabilitation in your list of the system's purposes, and comment that you being you, of course you don't.

The criminal justice system is not a retribution seeking machine. At least, it shouldn't be. To wish it were is barbaric.


No, I don't. Prisoners should be given the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves (prison jobs, classes, etc.) but society has no responsibility to rehabilitate them.

The criminal justice system very much is a retributive device. It must be in order to justly prohibit victimized parties from seeking their own retribution.

If society tells you that can't kill the man who kills your wife or child, then society damn well better exact appropriate retribution. It's part of the social contract.

Where society fails at this, you end up with cultures of vendetta, clan violence, and private justice.
   1316. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4391492)
What is your meta point, then? That... it's more complicated than us liberals are making it? I mean, except snapper.


As usual, it's less complicated than you liberals are making it.

Put the offenders on trial. Suggest to the victim that maybe that wasn't such a good position to put yourself in. (Yes, yes, the horror.)

The alternative is to do what is the only logical conclusion from the comments of the outraged liberals here: Tell the victim she made no lapse in judgment, to go ahead and put herself in the exact same situation time and time again and it's ok because it was Not Your Fault and it was just totally random that she became a victim.
   1317. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4391494)
Well, if you're not offended by this kind of behavior, there's something seriously wrong with your moral compass.

As noted in the "bad race-related words" threads, I don't get OFFENDED (tm) at things, in the sense of "I'm just going to keep posing and yelling and upping the rhetorical ante (*) until my point of view is recognized as best." Here, as there, that crap is disrespectful of pluralism and essentially anti-social. (As well as being anti-rational.)

There are rules and laws and procedures established for all that encompass both my "offense" and other important elements. I respect those rules and laws and procedures. I'm more "offended," though not OFFENDED (tm) at the suggestion that they be traduced for irrelevant reasons to satisfy the mob.

(*) We're up to "sub-human trash" and 10 years, can "filthy varmin" and 25 years be far behind?
   1318. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:25 PM (#4391495)
Whether it or isn't, the law might not agree, again depending on jurisdiction. As a reporter I heard any number of jury instructions admonishing jurors that digital penetration was as much rape as any other sort of penetration.


Again, I'm willing to leave the technical details of the law to the locales in question. I'm not sure I buy the idea that it's morally identical, at all.
   1319. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4391496)
I'd certainly *much* rather be killed with an injection in my sleep than stabbed to death in the stomach. But the former is still much less than, uh, ideal.


What I was responding to, of course, was SBB's declaration that "a non-violent act is much less of an offense than a violent act."

The violence may (or may not) be an aggravating factor, but inherently it doesn't make a criminal act "much less of an offense," surely. If you're dead, you're dead, presumably. And if you're raped, you're raped. Though of couse the Sams & SBBs of the world apparently regard that as ridiculous groupthink.

   1320. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4391497)
I am on the side of calling them violent and barbarians, but also think they are minors, should be treated as such and am willing to live with what the juistice system hands down as a penalty. The public sphere full of narrative and outrage is not the place for sentencing.

Repost for flip


See, now you are just riling up Ray.

I am interested in getting you liberals to dial down the irrational outrage machine in order to create a functional societal response to these sorts of things.


Who Liberals? Seriously responses an opinions on this board have been all over the place and don't seem to follow traditional breakdowns. And the trope of "you liberals" is very old and tired when Ray and others do it, please don't start, we don't need more of that. Just state specific posts or articles you object to, it makes this thread so much easier to deal with.
   1321. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:27 PM (#4391498)
We're up to "sub-human trash" and 10 years, can "filthy varmin" and 25 years be far behind?


The way snapper's going here, we'll not need a trial or prisons at all by page 15. We'll just find a short rope and a tall tree.
   1322. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4391499)
I am interested in getting you liberals

And snapper

to dial down the irrational outrage machine

Yes, you never feel outrage yourself, you must be above that.

in order to create a functional societal response to these sorts of things.

Absolutely valid. What is your functional societal response to this event? Or if you continue to not wish to comment on this actual event, these sorts of things?

Pretending that the victim, by dint of being victimized, has no moral or practical responsibility for herself and the situation in general, doesn't help.

We disagree on the point of responsibility here, which is a longer debate.

Pretending that fingering molestation and videotaping a drunk puking herself is equivalent to violent, forcible rape doesn't help.

Pushing your fingers into someone else's body cavity takes force. If you have trouble with the level of force defined, that's another debate. As is your disagreement, like SBB, with the definition of rape as a violent act by default.
   1323. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:28 PM (#4391500)
The alternative is to do what is the only logical conclusion from the comments of the outraged liberals here: Tell the victim she made no lapse in judgment, to go ahead and put herself in the exact same situation time and time again and it's ok because it was criminal for them to do that to you and it was just totally random that she became a victim.


So which post was that?
   1324. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:29 PM (#4391502)
Who Liberals?


I was responding to Lassus, specifically.
   1325. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:30 PM (#4391503)
Pretending that fingering molestation and videotaping a drunk puking herself is equivalent to violent, forcible rape doesn't help.

What is your fixation with violence being some sort of difference maker? Consent is the standard in Ohio -

2907.02 Rape.
(A)

(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:

(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person’s judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.

(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
   1326. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4391505)
As usual, it's less complicated than you liberals are making it.

Put the offenders on trial. Suggest to the victim that maybe that wasn't such a good position to put yourself in. (Yes, yes, the horror.)

The alternative is to do what is the only logical conclusion from the comments of the outraged liberals here: Tell the victim she made no lapse in judgment, to go ahead and put herself in the exact same situation time and time again and it's ok because it's Not Your Fault and it was just totally random that she became a victim.

That strawman is so big, I think I can see it from my window.

I'm just going to keep posing and yelling and upping the rhetorical ante (*) until my point of view is recognized as best.

Bull. That's practically all you do on Jack Morris threads for example.
   1327. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:31 PM (#4391506)
If you have trouble with the level of force defined, that's another debate. As is your disagreement, like SBB with the definition of rape as a violent act by default.


Why do you assume force?
   1328. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:32 PM (#4391509)
What is your fixation with violence being some sort of difference maker? Consent is the standard in Ohio


So you're happy with the Ohio justice system's definitions and process? Are you not upset about the sentencing?
   1329. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4391513)
What is your fixation with violence being some sort of difference maker? Consent is the standard in Ohio

And should be. Everything else should only be considered as mitigating or aggravating factors.
   1330. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4391514)
If you're dead, you're dead, presumably. And if you're raped, you're raped.

That doesn't begin to follow as there's no commonly-recognized and describable, permanent state as "raped."

Severe logical fail. Sorry.
   1331. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4391515)
Are you not upset about the sentencing?

Refusing to give an answer to any questions about this specific event kind of disqualifies you from asking anyone else questions about this specific event, doesn't it?


Why do you assume force?

You cut out my assumption of force when you quoted me.
   1332. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:35 PM (#4391518)
Why do you assume force?

It is impossible to perform any kind of penetration of any kind with zero force. There is resistance to overcome, that requires force, as a matter of physics.
   1333. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4391520)
The alternative is to do what is the only logical conclusion from the comments of the outraged liberals here: Tell the victim she made no lapse in judgment, to go ahead and put herself in the exact same situation time and time again and it's ok because it's Not Your Fault and it was just totally random that she became a victim.

That strawman is so big, I think I can see it from my window.


It's not a strawman at all. The objection is over the statement that it was a bad idea for the girl to put herself in that position. The statement that the system should deal with the offenders (try them, etc) was agreed to by everyone.

Since the statement that it was a bad idea for the girl to put herself in that position is objected to -- that's what got people irritated -- the only thing left is that it wasn't a bad idea for her to put herself in that position - it was just fine, she made no lapse in judgment. If something is not a bad idea, there's no reason not to do it again.

There is no strawman here at all. This is the only logical conclusion from what the liberals and Snapper have said.

   1334. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4391521)
Refusing to give an answer to any questions about this specific event kind of disqualifies you from asking anyone else specific questions about this event, doesn't it?


I've answered every question you've asked. Spike seems pretty clearly to be upset about something regarding either this case or this conversation. I figure it's useful to ascertain what it is that's pissing him off.
   1335. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4391522)
That doesn't begin to follow as there's no commonly-recognized and describable, permanent state as "raped."

Severe logical fail. Sorry.


Or shot I guess, because you know the bullet is taken out and the wound heals. Talk about logical fail - and I have partly agreed with many of the statements you have made upthread, but that one is pretty awful.
   1336. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4391523)
Severe logical fail. Sorry.

No need to apologize, we are used to it by now.
   1337. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:37 PM (#4391524)
Apparently, words, or at least concepts, like "force" & "violence" are beyond SBB's & Sam's understanding.

That, or they just like to argue.





Edit: And, probably, Ray, but the number of words or at least concepts that apparently lie beyond his understanding could fill several OEDs already.
   1338. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4391525)
It is impossible to perform any kind of penetration of any kind with zero force.


Then all penetrative sex is forcible?
   1339. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:38 PM (#4391526)
So you're happy with the Ohio justice system's definitions and process? Are you not upset about the sentencing?

What does that have to do with anything? This case meets the material definition of rape, and was adjudicated as such. The point is I'm not "pretending that fingering molestation and videotaping a drunk puking herself is equivalent to violent, forcible rape". By definition, it is - your contention that this is some function of man-hating feminists notwithstanding.
   1340. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4391527)
It is impossible to perform any kind of penetration of any kind with zero force.

Intel CPU installation disagrees.
   1341. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:39 PM (#4391528)
This is the only logical conclusion from what the liberals and Snapper have said.


Except, you know, all the liberals who have argued she should not have put her self in that position. Who has said otherwise? However that fact does not absolve anyone of responsbility for what they did. Where are these liberals you are arguing with Ray?
   1342. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4391529)
It's not a strawman at all. The objection is over the statement that it was a bad idea for the girl to put herself in that position.

Ok then, quote three people from this thread who have said she didn't exercise some level of poor judgement.
   1343. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4391530)
Apparently, words, or at least concepts, like "force" & "violence" are beyond SBB's & Sam's understanding.


When people keep moving the goal posts for what constitutes "force" and "violence" it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what standards are being considered at any given time. I knew an activist in college who argued, repeatedly, vehemently, that all heterosexual sex was rape because there was no such thing as "non-violent penetration of a woman by a man."
   1344. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:40 PM (#4391531)
Or shot I guess, because you know the bullet is taken out and the wound heals. Talk about logical fail - and I have partly agreed with many of the statements you have made upthread, but that one is pretty awful.


I assume that in SBB's kingdom, murder would be the only crime. And only violent murder at that.
   1345. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4391532)
It's not a strawman at all. The objection is over the statement that it was a bad idea for the girl to put herself in that position. The statement that the system should deal with the offenders (try them, etc) was agreed to by everyone.

Since the statement that it was a bad idea for the girl to put herself in that position is objected to -- that's what got people irritated -- the only thing left is that it wasn't a bad idea for her to put herself in that position - it was just fine, she made no lapse in judgment. If something is not a bad idea, there's no reason not to do it again.

There is no strawman here at all. This is the only logical conclusion from what the liberals and Snapper have said.


Not me. I said it was stupid for her to do what she did, and it greatly increased the risk of something bad happening. It is always stupid for anyone to get fall-down/black-out drunk, and it especially puts women at risk for sexual crimes.

That said, none of that is mitigating for the perpetrators. No amount of stupidity by the victim mitigates or excuses the crime.
   1346. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4391533)
Oh, and for the record, in Ohio, A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in prosecutions under this section.
   1347. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4391534)
Ok then, quote three people from this thread who have said she didn't exercise some level of poor judgement.


That's a sentiment that is being stated via silence over the fact, not a sentiment being stated outright.
   1348. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4391535)
Then all penetrative sex is forcible?

Yes, which is why rape hinges on consent.
   1349. Lassus Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4391536)
I've answered every question you've asked.

This one was one of the ones I was most interested in, from #1322:

Absolutely valid. What is your functional societal response to this event? Or if you continue to not wish to comment on this actual event, these sorts of things?


   1350. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4391537)
Oh, and for the record, in Ohio, A victim need not prove physical resistance to the offender in prosecutions under this section.


Which is why Ohio prosecuted the two young men for rape, I suspect. What exactly is your point?
   1351. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:42 PM (#4391538)
When people keep moving the goal posts for what constitutes "force" and "violence" it is reasonable to ask for clarification as to what standards are being considered at any given time. I knew an activist in college who argued, repeatedly, vehemently, that all heterosexual sex was rape because there was no such thing as "non-violent penetration of a woman by a man."


I can't speak for everyone else here, but what I've been referring to (absent chapter & verse, of course; I haven't stepped in a courtroom in years) is the legal definitions, as found in the Arkansas Code. I'd be really surprised if other jurisdictions differ in that regard to any substantial degree; judging from cites by others, Ohio's guidelines are very similar.
   1352. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4391540)
That's a sentiment that is being stated via silence over the fact, not a sentiment being stated outright.

Her poor judgement is irrelevant to their guilt; why should it be discussed?
   1353. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:43 PM (#4391541)
There is no strawman here at all. This is the only logical conclusion from what the liberals and Snapper have said.


Umm, no its not.


And some of Sam's comments on this thread have been borderline offensive/disgraceful
not that he cares what I (or anyone else) thinks.



   1354. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4391542)
It's not a strawman at all. The objection is over the statement that it was a bad idea for the girl to put herself in that position.

Ok then, quote three people from this thread who have said she didn't exercise some level of poor judgement.


Why is the statement that it was a bad idea for a girl to put herself in that position replied to with anything other than "Yes, exactly true."? Let's start there. Because "But! But! But! That doesn't absolve the boys of guilt!" is completely asinine as a response, because everyone agrees with that.

The only reason to respond like that is to take issue with the suggestion that the girl used poor judgment.
   1355. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:44 PM (#4391543)

Which is why Ohio prosecuted the two young men for rape, I suspect. What exactly is your point?


WTF is your point?
Really I get what others are trying to say, even Ray, but you? No, are you simply trying to stir things up?
   1356. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4391544)
Which is why Ohio prosecuted the two young men for rape, I suspect. What exactly is your point?

Because it makes this query "When people keep moving the goal posts for what constitutes "force" and "violence" beside the point with respect to this case.
   1357. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:45 PM (#4391545)
That's a sentiment that is being stated via silence over the fact, not a sentiment being stated outright.

But there have been plenty of people who have not been silent about that fact. Many of them liberals. Your standard is apparently that every single person has to go on record about her poor judgement. It's nonsensical.
   1358. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4391546)
Why is the statement that it was a bad idea for a girl to put herself in that position replied to with anything other than "Yes, exactly true."? Let's start there. Because "But! But! But! That doesn't absolve the boys of guilt!" is completely asinine as a response, because everyone agrees with that.

The only reason to respond like that is to take issue with the suggestion that the girl used poor judgment. Which is exactly what people have done - they have taken issue with the suggestion that the girl used bad judgment.


Because the only reason to bring it up is as some sort of attempt to mitigate the perps guilt. Otherwise, why discuss it?
   1359. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:46 PM (#4391547)
What is your functional societal response to this event? Or if you continue to not wish to comment on this actual event, these sorts of things?


Prosecution by the localities, in accordance to the laws on the books at the time it happens. As I've said repeatedly, I have no real issue with the boys being prosecuted for rape, nor do I have any big problem with the process of this trial. I've seen nothing suggesting the system didn't work well, and as designed. It's the folks like snapper, who want some sort of "chop their dirty cocks off and feed it to them" vengeance, and the folks absolutely convinced that something terrible has gone on to deny justice, even though two young men have been convicted of rape, who are over the rainbow in my opinion.

What should society do? Tell young girls not to get passed out drunk and open themselves to these dangers. Tell young men not to rape women (or men.) Prosecute where viable. Seems pretty straight forward to me.
   1360. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4391548)
That's a sentiment that is being stated via silence over the fact, not a sentiment being stated outright.


Wait what? This is what you are going with? So tell us who "stated via silence" and who did not? Sam what you said is the second silliest thing I have seen from you.

It is a discussion board with people dropping in and out and not being mandated to cover every point you think relevent. Stick to what people actually say and not what their silence says. Sheesh.
   1361. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:47 PM (#4391549)
Her poor judgement is irrelevant to their guilt; why should it be discussed?


I've already stated that I'm fine with Ohio's determination of guilt in this case, snapper. You're the one who thinks they know better than the locals because, man, it makes you just *mad mad mad* in your little boy heart or something.
   1362. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4391550)
Yes, which is why rape hinges on consent.

Then the term "force" on which you've rested so much import, has no real meaning. Even consensual sex is "forceful" -- and thus violent? -- under your definition.

   1363. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4391551)
Which is exactly what people have done - they have taken issue with the suggestion that the girl used bad judgment.


Who are these "people"? Have they said that in this thread? (Maybe they have; I haven't been taking notes.) I presume your outrage is stemming from what's been said elsewhere, but I haven't been paying much attention to general commentary by others. My own feeling is that rape is a bad thing & people who commit it should go to jail, but I realize that's a big leap for, evidently, at least 3 upstanding lovers of liberty here.
   1364. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4391552)
Not me. I said it was stupid for her to do what she did, and it greatly increased the risk of something bad happening. It is always stupid for anyone to get fall-down/black-out drunk, and it especially puts women at risk for sexual crimes.

That said, none of that is mitigating for the perpetrators. No amount of stupidity by the victim mitigates or excuses the crime.


Then please explain why we've gone on for 2+ pages on this. What are we arguing about?

-----------

That's a sentiment that is being stated via silence over the fact, not a sentiment being stated outright.


Exactly. People are playing dumb in order to camoflauge their views. They should own their views.
   1365. Tripon Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4391553)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-supreme-court-copyright-law-20130319,0,5654337.story

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court, in a major ruling on copyright law, has given foreign buyers of textbooks, movies and other products a right to resell them in the United States without the permission of the copyright owner.
The 6-3 decision is a victory for a former USC student from Thailand, Supap Kirtsaeng, who figured he could earn money by buying textbooks at lower costs in his native country and selling them in the United States.
   1366. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:48 PM (#4391554)
But! That doesn't absolve the boys of guilt!" is completely asinine as a response, because everyone agrees with that.


It's not an asinine response because:

1: The girl being stupid (or immoral or whatever) is frequently brought up by people whose goal is to mitigate the boy's guilt

2: There are people who believe that hey getting blackout drunk (or wearing certain clothing) does in fact = "consent"

Of course either you know that or you occupy some really weird position on the autism spectrum.
   1367. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4391555)
Prosecution by the localities, in accordance to the laws on the books at the time it happens. As I've said repeatedly, I have no real issue with the boys being prosecuted for rape, nor do I have any big problem with the process of this trial. I've seen nothing suggesting the system didn't work well, and as designed. It's the folks like snapper, who want some sort of "chop their dirty cocks off and feed it to them" vengeance, and the folks absolutely convinced that something terrible has gone on to deny justice, even though two young men have been convicted of rape, who are over the rainbow in my opinion.

My only beef with the process is I think they should have been tried as adults, and be facing a harsher sentence. 1-2 years in prison for their actions is insufficient.

I don't see how that constitutes some mad quest for vengeance.
   1368. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4391556)
Her poor judgement is irrelevant to their guilt; why should it be discussed?

Her poor judgment is reflective of the context of the kids' bad acts, and thus important to the extent to which those acts offended the community. The extent to which their acts offended the community is, in turn, extremely relevant to the justness of the punishment inflicted on them by the community.
   1369. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:50 PM (#4391557)
Why is the statement that it was a bad idea for a girl to put herself in that position replied to with anything other than "Yes, exactly true."? Let's start there. Because "But! But! But! That doesn't absolve the boys of guilt!" is completely asinine as a response, because everyone agrees with that.

The only reason to respond like that is to take issue with the suggestion that the girl used poor judgment.

No, the reason to state it in that way, is because harping on the girl's poor judgement, in the face of being raped, comes over in about the same way as "she was asking for it really, what being dressed like that" does. Namely as excuse making for the offenders.
   1370. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:51 PM (#4391558)
Then please explain why we've gone on for 2+ pages on this. What are we arguing about?


I'm arguing that the sentence is insufficient for the crime. It is laughable to charge 16 and 17 y.o.'s accused of a violent crime as juveniles. That is all.
   1371. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4391559)
I don't see how that constitutes some mad quest for vengeance.

Because their capacity is limited because of their age. They can't even enter into legally enforceable contracts.



   1372. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:52 PM (#4391560)
And some of Sam's comments on this thread have been borderline offensive/disgraceful


Let me turn the tables here and ask for a cite, please. I haven't really thrown any bombs in this conversation.
   1373. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4391561)
Because the only reason to bring it up is as some sort of attempt to mitigate the perps guilt. Otherwise, why discuss it?


I don't understand the question. "Why discuss" anything? The reason to discuss it is to point out that society ought to be telling women not to put themselves in vulnerable positions like this. While also telling men not to rape and sexually assault women, and dealing with and prosecuting crimes of rape and sexual assault as they occur.

To me, the "only reason" for liberals to take issue with this is as some sort of attempt to cut off the message to women that women shouldn't put themselves in vulnerable positions like this.

Why liberals want that message cut off is left as an exercise for the reader.
   1374. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:54 PM (#4391562)
Then the term "force" on which you've rested so much import, has no real meaning. Even consensual sex is "forceful" -- and thus violent? -- under your definition.

I haven't put any import on the term force whatsoever. I have said that it is irrelevant when it comes to rape, other than that level of force may constitute a mitigating or aggravating factor. But rape is rape, regardless of how forceful it was.
   1375. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4391563)
Because their capacity is limited because of their age. They can't even enter into legally enforceable contracts.

Oh please. 16 and 17 y.o.'s are fully able to make moral judgements. It is absurd to suggest they didn't know exactly what they were doing. They may make bad judgements, but so do stupid people, and being stupid isn't a defence against criminal charges either.
   1376. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:55 PM (#4391564)
Her poor judgment is reflective of the context of the kids' bad acts


How old was she? Was she 16 or 17 too? If so, why are her actions not open for debate while (in snapper's view) the boys should be tried as grown men?

If the two boys had paraded a male friend around from party to party and fondled his genitals would they have been tried for rape?
   1377. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:56 PM (#4391567)
Oh please. 16 and 17 y.o.'s are fully able to make moral judgements. It is absurd to suggest they didn't know exactly what they were doing.


Were they drunk? If so, how do we know to assign full moral culpability to them, while removing responsibility from her?
   1378. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4391568)
I haven't put any import on the term force whatsoever.

You insisted that Sam and I didn't understand it when we understand it perfectly and you don't.
   1379. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4391569)
Tell young girls not to get passed out drunk and open themselves to these dangers. Tell young men not to rape women (or men.)

Seems like the latter would mitigate the former pretty significantly. Which is sort of the point - how about men just not rape people, and if there is some unsureness, go with not "f**king someone just because you can at that particular moment" as the default position.
   1380. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:57 PM (#4391570)

I don't understand the question. "Why discuss" anything? The reason to discuss it is to point out that society ought to be telling women not to put themselves in vulnerable positions like this. While also telling men not to rape and sexually assault women, and dealing with and prosecuting crimes of rape and sexual assault as they occur.

To me, the "only reason" for liberals to take issue with this is as some sort of attempt to cut off the message to women that women shouldn't put themselves in vulnerable positions like this.

Why liberals want that message cut off is left as an exercise for the reader.


If it makes you happy I fully endorse the message. Women should never get drunk unless they are 100% sure they have family/friends who will protect them.
   1381. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4391575)
Were they drunk? If so, how do we know to assign full moral culpability to them, while removing responsibility from her?

Did she commit any violent crimes? I believe she has 100% moral and legal responsibility for any crimes she committed while black-out drunk.

Except, she didn't commit any crimes, so she has nothing to be responsible for.
   1382. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4391576)
Seems like the latter would mitigate the former pretty significantly. Which is sort of the point - how about men just not rape people, and if there is some unsureness, go with not "f**king someone just because you can at that particular moment" as the default position.


If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped, spike.
   1383. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 02:59 PM (#4391577)
16 and 17 y.o.'s are fully able to make moral judgements.

No, they're not. They are not fully able to make moral judgments sufficent to be punished for them in the same way adults are.

You're hyperventilating. The law deems that they are not, a principle that has been in place as indicative of a civilized, rational society for decades. The principle is a very worthy one.
   1384. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:00 PM (#4391578)
Seems like the latter would mitigate the former pretty significantly. Which is sort of the point - how about men just not rape people, and if there is some unsureness, go with not "f**king someone just because you can at that particular moment" as the default position.

Well, we still lock our cars even though we tell people not to steal them.

The world is full of evil people, it makes 100% good sense for women (and men) to avoid putting themselves in risky situations.
   1385. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4391579)
Why is the statement that it was a bad idea for a girl to put herself in that position replied to with anything other than "Yes, exactly true."? Let's start there. Because "But! But! But! That doesn't absolve the boys of guilt!" is completely asinine as a response, because everyone agrees with that.


Ray, are you paying attention? This is why people make sure to stress that poor judgement does impact the guilt of the boys. Because some people think that it does:
Her poor judgment is reflective of the context of the kids' bad acts, and thus important to the extent to which those acts offended the community. The extent to which their acts offended the community is, in turn, extremely relevant to the justness of the punishment inflicted on them by the community.

   1386. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:01 PM (#4391580)
If the two boys had paraded a male friend around from party to party and fondled his genitals would they have been tried for rape?

If they had stuck their fingers in his ass, yes.

From the Ohio statute - “Sexual conduct” means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.
   1387. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4391581)
Seems like the latter would mitigate the former pretty significantly. Which is sort of the point - how about men just not rape people, and if there is some unsureness, go with not "f**king someone just because you can at that particular moment" as the default position.


Because this doesn't go far enough to address the situation. It's willful blindness, and shouting down the people making a very valid recommendation to women is foolish and harmful.
   1388. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4391583)
You're hyperventilating. The law deems that they are not, a principle that has been in place as indicative of a civilized, rational society for decades. The principle is a very worthy one.


Except that quite often the law has deemed otherwise.

We'll all let you alone while you collapse, weeping, into the corner.
   1389. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:02 PM (#4391584)
This is why people make sure to stress that poor judgement does impact the guilt of the boys. Because some people think that it does:

Can you read? I didn't say it impacted their "guilt," I said it impacted the extent to which the boys acts offended the community and the justness of the punishment that can be justly rendered.
   1390. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:03 PM (#4391587)
If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass when he hopped, spike.

Consigning your favorite gender to perpetual rapist with no ability to control his actions must have really hurt.
   1391. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:04 PM (#4391588)
No, they're not. They are not fully able to make moral judgments sufficent to be punished for them in the same way adults are.

I disagree, and the law provides for 16-17 y.o.'s to be tried as adults. They often are for serious crimes.

It's laughable to think that crossing the magic line of 18 imparts greater guilt. I'm sure there are 25 y.o.'s that have less capacity to reason morally than the average 15 y.o. So what?

As long as you are aware that what you are doing is wrong, you should face punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. Any exception should be proven on an individual basis, i.e. the defense can attempt to show that their client was not aware of the wrongness of their acts.
   1392. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:05 PM (#4391590)
Except that quite often the law has deemed otherwise.

Actually, it doesn't do it "often" at all. Instead, it does it rarely, and generally in the face of publicity and an irrational mob. If this had been two chemistry nerds in Boston without all the OMG SMALL TOWN FOOTBALL!!! publicity, the offender would have been tried as a juvenile and punished as a juvenile. (Assuming the justice system got involved at all.)
   1393. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:06 PM (#4391591)
Can you read? I didn't say it impacted their "guilt," I said it impacted the extent to which the boys acts offended the community and the justness of the punishment that can be justly rendered.

That's the same damn thing. You're using her behavior as a mitigating factor in punishment.

I'm sorry, the moral state of the victim doesn't effect the severity of the crime. What's next? Are you going to argue that serial killers should get less time when they "only" murder prostitutes?
   1394. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:07 PM (#4391594)
Actually, it doesn't do it "often" at all. Instead, it does it rarely, and generally in the face of publicity and an irrational mob. If this had been two chemistry nerds in Boston without all the OMG SMALL TOWN FOOTBALL!!! publicity, the offender would have been tried as a juvenile and punished as a juvenile.

They were tried as juveniles. That's what I don't like.
   1395. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:08 PM (#4391595)
Can you read? I didn't say it impacted their "guilt," I said it impacted the extent to which the boys acts offended the community and the justness of the punishment that can be justly rendered.

If it impacts the justness of their punishment, then it impacts their guilt, by definition.
   1396. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4391596)
You're using her behavior as a mitigating factor in punishment.

No, I'm using the context of the acts. Her being drunk is part of that context, drunk girls, everything else equal, being perceived as more sexually available than non-drunk girls.

As noted above, the kids crossed a very-blurred line. This wasn't an adult forcible rape between two strangers in the bushes, no matter how many times people scream that it was.

   1397. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:10 PM (#4391598)
Consigning your favorite gender to perpetual rapist with no ability to control his actions must have really hurt.


1. I don't have a "favorite gender." You're just assuming too much because you're aghast that I'm not following the official outrage playbook on this issue.

2. It doesn't really hurt my feelings to acknowledge that the monkey is the monkey, and will behave as monkeys do. I'm not one to pretend that wishcasting will bring that pie down out of the sky.
   1398. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4391600)
If it impacts the justness of their punishment, then it impacts their guilt, by definition.

So you can't understand words, then. Now it's clear. Thanks for clearing that up.
   1399. spike Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:11 PM (#4391601)
OMG SMALL TOWN FOOTBALL! very nearly got this case swept under the rug with no prosecution at all.

Steubenville Leaders Attempt to Combat Anonymous’s Accusations of Rape Case Cover-Up
   1400. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 19, 2013 at 03:12 PM (#4391602)
No, I'm using the context of the acts. Her being drunk is part of that context, drunk girls, everything else equal, being perceived as more sexually available than non-drunk girls.

"She was asking for it really, dressing like that."
Page 14 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAstros interested in Robertson: source | New York Post
(12 - 3:02pm, Nov 23)
Last: Dock Ellis on Acid

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(438 - 2:54pm, Nov 23)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(969 - 2:53pm, Nov 23)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4181 - 2:49pm, Nov 23)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(105 - 2:47pm, Nov 23)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogOT - November 2014 College Football thread
(563 - 2:32pm, Nov 23)
Last: theboyqueen

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(32 - 2:25pm, Nov 23)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(18 - 1:54pm, Nov 23)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(7 - 1:53pm, Nov 23)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSunday Notes: Arroyo’s Rehab, Clark & the MLBPA, Doc Gooden, AFL Arms, ChiSox, more
(2 - 1:50pm, Nov 23)
Last: bobm

NewsblogPablo Sandoval leaning toward Red Sox, to decide next week — Padres have highest offer, all offers on table (including SF Giants’) - John Shea
(13 - 1:49pm, Nov 23)
Last: Ziggy

NewsblogDeadspin: Curt Schilling’s Son Accidentally Brings Fake Grenade To Logan Airport
(20 - 1:45pm, Nov 23)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(147 - 1:19pm, Nov 23)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(28 - 12:37pm, Nov 23)
Last: BDC

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(21 - 12:32pm, Nov 23)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

Page rendered in 1.1128 seconds
52 querie(s) executed