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 20 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >  Last ›
   1901. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:12 PM (#4392938)
The issue with harping about the victim's responsibility is that it is entirely counter-productive, if what you are actually trying to do is reduce the occurrence of rape.
Again, the phrasing of the problem shifts the blame from male rapists to female victims. "What could the women have done to have prevented being raped?" makes female action the necessary cause of the male raping her.
   1902. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:13 PM (#4392939)
Sbb, if this isn't barbaric to you, what is?

1879/diabc: on board with 95% of what you're saying, think you could use a rebranding. {/UnaskedFor2Cents]

This is somewhat crude, but: there are many reasons I don't like that usage for the slang term for female genitalia 'p****' ... even apart from women being tough and (regardless) not deserving demeaning associations like that - one, somewhat jokey, of which is: I *like* female genitalia. Why the hell would I use it as an insult?

We can certainly do both. The important thing from the male side of the equation is to drill into the culture the understanding that no amount of "risky behavior" constitutes consent.

QFE.


Andy, if I had a gun at 19 or earlier - I'd've either shot myself accidentally or someone else intentionally. No thank you...
   1903. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4392941)
Sbb, if this isn't barbaric to you, what is?


My impression -- quite possibly wrong -- is that he believes nothing anyone under 18 does can be regarded as barbaric. Or, at least, nothing described in this thread.

Which I, for one, find as naive as it is bizarre, but I guess he gets a bit of credit for being consistent, if nothing else (again, assuming I'm summarizing correctly &/or haven't confused him with someone else).
   1904. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:16 PM (#4392942)
I'm pretty aware of what legally constitutes rape.

OK, what did the State of Ohio have to prove here?
   1905. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:18 PM (#4392943)
gef, SBB said "I rarely define the acts of non-adults as "barbaric" and don't here." So, he's willing to entertain the notion that non-adults can do barbaric things. I'm curious as to where he draws the line.
   1906. The Good Face Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:19 PM (#4392945)
But we don't have large numbers of people saying murder's okay because a murder victim's just asking for it.


We have a large number of people saying 'don't walk through central park at 2am.' But there are no open-mouthed gasps produced by that statement.


Exactly right. When we read about Fat Tony from the mafia getting whacked, we shrug because he lived the sort of lifestyle where he was, in fact, asking for it. When we read about a 6 year old girl murdered by a creepy neighbor, we're shocked and saddened.

It may make some people uncomfortable, but people are constantly judging one another based on perceived qualities of worthiness, and this will not change regardless of the posturing of moral busybodies. We are always measuring, and measure is unceasing.
   1907. DevilInABlueCap Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:22 PM (#4392952)
[...]it implies that our culture condones rape, which is not true.


That's a sweet sentiment, but wrong. Our culture condones rape all the time. It just refuses to call it "rape." It changes the terms of the debate. It has elected officials that impugn women's motives for talking about crimes that happen to them (see: VAWA debate). It focuses on what the victim did (drinking) instead of acknowledging that there is *nothing* a person does that invites or excuses rape. Women don't drink in Saudi Arabia. I don't think that helps protect the women there one ############# bit. The culture that says that women have sex and it must be pried from them, the culture that objectifies women and reduces them down to body parts instead of accepting their agency, the culture that says if a woman doesn't do everything in her power to resist having sex taken from her, she must have desired it on some level...that culture condones rape. It says that a finger isn't rape. Then it says that the tip isn't rape. Then it says that if he didn't come, it's not rape. It takes rape away from brothers, fathers, cousins, sisters, friends and places it on obviously insane people who wait in shadows, and defines away women who trusted their rapists because "they didn't look or act like threats." It condones in the form of "just a joke" and "get a sense of humor" and "you don't want to hear the truth" because that deflects taking responsibility for saying things that hurt others (like racists do when confronted about racism).

And then when women do act like there are threats everywhere, like we can't be safe, like a short skirt or high heels are a siren, we get called "uptight" and "prude" and "cold" and "shrill". We're told that we don't give enough chances. That we're boring and prejudicial. Do we really want to be like those humorless feminists who say that all penetrative sex is rape? Just let go a little bit and enjoy life!

When legislators stand up and frame the right for a woman to take birth control in terms of daughters, sisters, mothers because the only way someone can care about women is if she conjures up the image of a specific one, that's a culture that condones rape.

Just like racism, or homophobia, or Islamophobia, micro cuts matter. To boil it down to James Byrd Jr. or Matthew Shepherd or Oak Creek, Wisconsin does a disservice to the thousands of moments that someone never got the message that it was wrong. Absolutely, horribly, unjustifiably wrong.
   1908. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:23 PM (#4392953)
gef, SBB said "I rarely define the acts of non-adults as "barbaric" and don't here." So, he's willing to entertain the notion that non-adults can do barbaric things. I'm curious as to where he draws the line.


Good point. I wonder how he'd feel about cannibalism by, say, someone 17 years & 364 days old.
   1909. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:24 PM (#4392955)
I don't consider a 16 year old's failure to properly interpret intoxication and female sexual response, while intoxicated, to be "barbaric."

He demonstrated no intention to rape, and is extremely remorseful. I can't begin to see how you get to "barbarian" and "animal" from the facts in this case. I can certainly sign on to "reprehensible" or maybe even "grossly reprehensible."
   1910. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:25 PM (#4392957)
When we read about Fat Tony from the mafia getting whacked, we shrug because he lived the sort of lifestyle where he was, in fact, asking for it.
I know you're not saying that this high school girl wasn't "asking for it." Right?

It's a little wrong that I even have to ask that for clarification.
   1911. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4392960)
No, we don't. Not one person has said "rape's okay because a rape victim's just asking for it." You made that up.
See #1830.


Ray, let me know when you have indeed seen #1830.
   1912. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4392961)
I can't begin to see how you get to "barbarian" and "animal" from the facts in this case.


You're not Sam, I know, but part of the latter's position is that sheer animal instinct is very much involved here, IIRC.
   1913. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:29 PM (#4392962)
No woman should be sexually harassed for walking down a public street, regardless of wardrobe.

With that said, sexual signalling exists and is real and construction workers are not known for their highly advanced sense of social propriety.


Yes. And yes.

I ask everyone who is outraged that woman/girl would be judged or assessed on the basis or her looks and the way she dresses: why the hell do you think she wears a mini-skirt or shorts or bikini. She wants "hand", too, in the Darwinian dynamic. Jeez, c'mon.

The above has nothing to do with the Steubenville case. However, did that young woman, that girl is you prefer, want to attract one of those boys? Often, girls do, and often alcohol helps them--inhibitions, Dutch courage and all that. This enabled her, gave her the psychic strength, to flirt, show some leg, touch, kiss, etc. What if she had not drunk to unconsciousness, had had sex with the guy, then woke up and really felt ashamed. And decided it was rape because he should have known that she was too drunk to consent (oh, and he was drunk, too). What then? Rape? This happens all the time--well, claiming rape afterwards doesn't, but the first part does.


   1914. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:31 PM (#4392964)
OK, what did the State of Ohio have to prove here?

That [t]he [victim]’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 [victim]’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

Just for your future reference, if you're having any sort of sexual contact with a girl in between her bouts of vomiting and mumbling incoherently, she is "substantially impaired" and you are a criminal.
   1915. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:32 PM (#4392967)
1772:

Yes, exactly. By that I mean, ot.
   1916. DevilInABlueCap Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4392968)
I don't consider a 16 year old's failure to properly interpret intoxication and female sexual response, while intoxicated, to be "barbaric."

I will write this in little bits, so it's clear. She. Was. Unconscious. She was vomiting on herself. She had somehow (not of her own volition) been stripped down to her underwear. She was urinated on. She was posed for photos. She was carried around like a sack.

THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

Jesus be a shield.

This is not: Suzy and Bobby were making out in the backseat after finishing a bottle of Jack, and then Suzy was like, aren't we going to go home, and Bobby was like, I'll show you home and Suzy didn't scream.

I can't even...
   1917. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4392969)
No, we don't. Not one person has said "rape's okay because a rape victim's just asking for it." You made that up.


See #1830.


Ray, let me when you have indeed seen #1830.


I thought it was clear my statement above referred to what people here were saying, since that's what Matt & co. are so outraged about, both hands pressed against their cheeks, mouth agape, eyes wide open, jaw dropped, getting lightheaded and about to faint, that they can't continue to be in this community with the people here.
   1918. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:34 PM (#4392970)
I ask everyone who is outraged that woman/girl would be judged or assessed on the basis or her looks and the way she dresses: why the hell do you think she wears a mini-skirt or shorts or bikini. She wants "hand", too, in the Darwinian dynamic. Jeez, c'mon.
I think the construction workers say it more elegantly: "dressed like that, you know she wants it!"
You do know the 1950s ended, yeah Mort?
   1919. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4392974)
What if she had not drunk to unconsciousness, had had sex with the guy, then woke up and really felt ashamed. And decided it was rape because he should have known that she was too drunk to consent (oh, and he was drunk, too). What then? Rape? This happens all the time--well, claiming rape afterwards doesn't, but the first part does.
Would it then be fair to say that the boy in this case was asking for it? After all, he was getting with a girl who drank until she couldn't see straight. He had it coming, sticking his dick in crazy like an idiot.

Wait, is that not acceptable?
   1920. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:40 PM (#4392975)
She. Was. Unconscious. She was vomiting on herself.
Apparently, in Ohio they teach kids that any of those signals can be interpreted as an indication of sexual arousal. So she was being really ambiguous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
   1921. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4392978)
Apparently, in Ohio they teach kids that any of those signals can be interpreted as an indication of sexual arousal. So she was being really ambiguous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.


SBB, what part of Ohio are you from?
   1922. DevilInABlueCap Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4392979)
Apparently, in Ohio they teach kids that any of those signals can be interpreted as an indication of sexual arousal. So she was being really ambiguous at best, and intentionally misleading at worst.
Stomach flu season must be interesting then...
   1923. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:46 PM (#4392981)
I thought it was clear my statement above referred to what people here were saying, since that's what Matt & co. are so outraged about

The original comment you responded to had nothing at all to do with people specifically here in the thread, so stick with the original context next time before you accuse other people of making crap up.
   1924. The Good Face Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:48 PM (#4392985)
I know you're not saying that this high school girl wasn't "asking for it." Right?

It's a little wrong that I even have to ask that for clarification.


Of course it's wrong for you to ask such a question; it's simply a passive-aggressive way of attemption to impute what you believe to be an unacceptable position onto another person. Might as well show some courage and just call everybody you disagree with a rapist.

Although your question doesn't deserve an answer, I'll answer it anyway because I'm a kindly soul. No. I am NOT saying that the high school girl in this case we've been discussing was "asking for it".
   1925. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:50 PM (#4392986)
Stomach flu season must be interesting then...
Narcoleptic Ohioans are practically begging for it. Or just randomly falling asleep. Indeed, these are complex times for young men.
   1926. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4392987)
The original comment you responded to had nothing at all to do with people specifically here in the thread, so stick with the original context next time before you accuse other people of making crap up.


So your "gotcha!" is that I must have been proclaiming that nobody in the world had ever said it? That is absurd.
   1927. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:52 PM (#4392988)
1783:

This is witch-hunt mentality big time.

Rape culture, for the uninitiated, is not about being a rapist. It's about creating a world that constantly calls into question the legitimacy of sexual assault victims, that shifts blame away from people who commit sexual crimes and onto the people who are subject to them.

Ace, welcome to reality. That takes place with ALL categories of crime. You’re not special. Everyone in legal situations is entitled to make a case for their actions. If that they can offends you, well, too ####### bad.

What the person who feels as you do does (that your personal interest, felt viscerally, should override all else because you’re the apogee of evolution) unfortunately is demonize the opposition. And never get pass that. Never think there is a point in getting past that. The law is limited in its application and it is there to protect interests that come in conflict. It’s about all of us living in the world. Not just you. That means that it recognizes people do things for cause and reasons—and they are entitled to be heard, if nothing else. At the bare minimum, they are entitled to make their case. Now, characterizations and designations such as promoting a rape culture undermine that in a most grievous sense. I mean, heck, you don’t even want them to have a “if nothing else.”



   1928. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:53 PM (#4392991)
Might as well show some courage and just call everybody you disagree with a rapist.
But I don't believe that. That, however, was a pretty spectacular display of passive-aggression.
   1929. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:55 PM (#4392992)
I don't consider a 16 year old's failure to properly interpret intoxication and female sexual response, while intoxicated, to be "barbaric."

He demonstrated no intention to rape, and is extremely remorseful. I can't begin to see how you get to "barbarian" and "animal" from the facts in this case. I can certainly sign on to "reprehensible" or maybe even "grossly reprehensible."



I will write this in little bits, so it's clear. She. Was. Unconscious. She was vomiting on herself. She had somehow (not of her own volition) been stripped down to her underwear. She was urinated on. She was posed for photos. She was carried around like a sack.

THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.


I'm 100% with Devil here. A 16 y.o. person who doesn't know what they did is wrong is a barbarian, an animal. Actually worse than an animal. Animals don't intentionally humiliate each other. How about we go with filth? Not fit for human society.

   1930. zenbitz Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:56 PM (#4392994)
Every gender discussion gives BTF two big, fat black eyes.


Nah, it just ran into a door.
   1931. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:58 PM (#4392996)
The point that feminists have pressed repeatedly is that your tactic has the effect of excusing the actions of the rapists.


Too bad. That comes with a weighted adversarial system, which is how law works--which is how most everything works.
   1932. formerly dp Posted: March 20, 2013 at 05:59 PM (#4392999)
Nah, it just ran into a door.
That took...longer than I expected...
   1933. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:00 PM (#4393000)
Nah, it just ran into a door.

Zenbitz wins the thread.
   1934. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:04 PM (#4393005)

Too bad. That comes with a weighted adversarial system, which is how law works--which is how most everything works.


Morty, this thread is not a courtroom. No one is required to defend the perps if what they did is indefensible.
   1935. The Good Face Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:05 PM (#4393006)
Nah, it just ran into a door.

Zenbitz wins the thread.


Yep, we have a winner.
   1936. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:07 PM (#4393008)
...it sound like these boys
died of natural causes.


- How's that, sheriff?
- Natural to the line of work they in.


   1937. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:13 PM (#4393015)
Men who will serve time in prison for rape are a very, very, very small group.


Men who are convicted in court?

1825:

This applies to all crimes, not just rapes. That's another reason why you should watch out for yourself. The law is woefully lacking and always has been. Only some sort of fascist totalitarianism can a make a dent in that. Hell, until the 1830s, the English didn't even have policemen.

People say only such and such a percentage of rapes are reported. Only a small percentage of thefts are reported. Trespasses, disturbing the peace, etc. We expect a precision from the criminal system that just ain't there. It cannot give it to you.
   1938. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:15 PM (#4393020)
In general, the really creepy stuff has come from the guys who usually stake out really creepy positions, no? I guess the really obvious exception has been Sam, just for the sake of being Captain Iconoclast or something sad like that.


And your point is?
   1939. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:18 PM (#4393025)
So there was a story in the Huffington Post yesterday about social media and Steubenville. Link. What are some of the things it said? Let's see:

And, experts say, the social media component of the Steubenville case may help educate young people who remain shockingly ignorant about the definition of sexual assault.

"Shockingly ignorant."

Anything else? Well, the kid who took one of the videos didn't realize that what he was witnessing was rape:

Educators and counselors say they are saddened, though not totally shocked, that some of the teens were unaware of what constitutes a sex crime. Evan Westlake, who took the video of the rape, testified: "It wasn't violent. I didn't know exactly what rape was. I always pictured it was someone forcing themselves on someone."

It actually isn't that "shocking" -- them not being adults and all.

How clear is it that someone who is drunk isn't capable of consenting legally? Not very, according to an educator worthy of quote, who stresses the need to teach such things:

A sexuality educator in New York says this provides a key opportunity. "Clearly we have boys and girls who haven't had an education in sexual assault," says Kirsten deFur. "We need to teach them, for example, that consent is crucial at every step. And that if someone is drunk or unconscious, that person is unable to give consent."

Yep, real bright line there. Real bright.

   1940. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:26 PM (#4393030)
And your point is?


That Matt shouldn't be particularly repulsed by anything he's read in this thread, considering the involvement of the usual sources.
   1941. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:27 PM (#4393031)
Yeah, but you're inclined to a sympathetic interpretation of your own positions-- try to have the self-awareness (not to steal too much from Robin here) to see how what you wrote in that thread might come off to someone who's not inclined to such a generous reading.


Now, that is choice.

I hope this thread gets closed. Its at that point.


Waaanh.

1885:

:>) You're beautiful when you engage your inner wimp.
   1942. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:37 PM (#4393040)
Morty, this thread is not a courtroom. No one is required to defend the perps if what they did is indefensible.


That was a case in law. "Rape" used to be about a legal definition, one that didn't engraft metaphorical ones. Plus, as I said, and as you of course ignored, all systems weighing rights and wrongs are adversarial. If a mentality manifests itself that can't tolerate the other side's views, that's when you need to become scared. And that comes out a lot in those here who just show up to righteously vent their disapproval of the discussion and to sign autographs in a for each other in a comradely huddle.
   1943. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4393043)
And, experts say, the social media component of the Steubenville case may help educate young people who remain shockingly ignorant about the definition of sexual assault.

"Shockingly ignorant."

Anything else? Well, the kid who took one of the videos didn't realize that what he was witnessing was rape:

Educators and counselors say they are saddened, though not totally shocked, that some of the teens were unaware of what constitutes a sex crime. Evan Westlake, who took the video of the rape, testified: "It wasn't violent. I didn't know exactly what rape was. I always pictured it was someone forcing themselves on someone."

It actually isn't that "shocking" -- them not being adults and all.

How clear is it that someone who is drunk isn't capable of consenting legally? Not very, according to an educator worthy of quote, who stresses the need to teach such things:

A sexuality educator in New York says this provides a key opportunity. "Clearly we have boys and girls who haven't had an education in sexual assault," says Kirsten deFur. "We need to teach them, for example, that consent is crucial at every step. And that if someone is drunk or unconscious, that person is unable to give consent."

Yep, real bright line there. Real bright.


In SBBland, ignorance of the law (& of simple standards of decency, for that matter) is a defense, then?
   1944. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:39 PM (#4393044)
I hope this thread gets closed. Its at that point.


Why stop there? The entire site should be closed so that people don't have to hear viewpoints they disagree with.
   1945. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:42 PM (#4393045)
Morty, this thread is not a courtroom. No one is required to defend the perps if what they did is indefensible.

Huh? We're talking about a court case.
   1946. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:51 PM (#4393048)
Why stop there? The entire site should be closed so that people don't have to hear viewpoints they disagree with.

Why stop at this site?
   1947. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:52 PM (#4393049)
Huh? We're talking about a court case.

So? Just because we're talking about a court case doesn't mean that anyone has a duty to defend a particular party. I have no problem with the defendants' attorneys making bizarre arguments about how this wasn't rape, or even how it was the victim's fault. That's their job in an adversarial justice system (and no Morty, not all judicial systems are adversarial). We're just talking about our opinions about a court case, hence "No one is required to defend the perps if what they did is indefensible."
   1948. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4393050)
What gets me, what's mindboggling, is that this instance here (and other recent ones, like the one about males being forced to pay child support to kids they didn't want) evinces a "culture" that can't even countenance a different point of view (whether it is wrong or not, off the rails or not). They just don't want to hear it, apparently to such an extent that some might forthwith make a brown-bag luggage exit. That's truly laughable. Now, if that's you, then you haven't begun to master the rudiments of conversation, discussion, debate, argument, or analysis. And to hell with you.
   1949. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:53 PM (#4393052)
So your "gotcha!" is that I must have been proclaiming that nobody in the world had ever said it? That is absurd.

I have no gotcha. You took a general statement that applied to nobody here, and then somehow created in your head the fact that it was indeed said about people in this thread, taking the opportunity to then accuse someone of dishonesty about something they never said. I was simply informing you that you did that, because you didn't seem to be able to figure it out on your own.


Why stop there? The entire site should be closed so that people don't have to hear viewpoints they disagree with.

I could certainly be wrong, but I interpreted that as Tripon meaning for the talking past each other component.
   1950. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 06:59 PM (#4393054)
They just don't want to hear it, apparently to such an extent that some might forthwith make a brown-bag luggage exit.

For the 10 millionth time, disagreeing with someone vociferously and completely is not the same as not wanting to hear it or not discussing it. There have been many full and lengthy arguments against you and yours, with quotes and specific answers and everything. All you see is "THEY DON"T WANT TO HEAR IT" because you can't stand to be disagreed with. Who here has come up with the same thing against you or Sam or SBB or Good Face? "OH MY GOD THEY AREN'T EVEN LISTENING!" Don't be such a baby because MCoA didn't feel like getting his feet dirty.
   1951. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:00 PM (#4393055)
In SBBland, ignorance of the law (& of simple standards of decency, for that matter) is a defense, then?


Nice try.

It self-evidently wasn't the bright line to the teenagers that several people insisted it was. And then they got all pissy when they got called on their nonsense. FFS, their peer taped the thing not even thinking he was witnessing a crime. So if he thought that, how could the perps not be reasonably thought to have believed that?

And now that you mention it, yes, a teenager not realizing that he was engaged in criminal conduct as defined by adult criminal statutes is indeed a significantly mitigating factor in the teenager's culpability. A criminal state of mind -- mens rea -- is a necessary prerequisite to serious punishment in all civilized jurisdictions.





   1952. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:00 PM (#4393056)
Do you think it problamatic:
a) that the slang for female genetalia is a synonym for being a wimp?
b) That Morty thought it OK to use it? (EDIT: In this thread)
c) That Morty defended his use and sees no problem even when brought to his attention?


a) Language changes slowly over time. It's not a term I use frequently.
b) Morty can use whatever language he likes so long as he owns it and Jim doesn't tell him to knock it off.
c) Few people in this or any other thread are going to acquiesce to the demand that they withdraw meekly and ask forgiveness. The medium is the message in that regard.
   1953. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:04 PM (#4393057)
(and no Morty, not all judicial systems are adversarial).


That's interesting. What are some?

Adversarial argument is formally part of our judicial system, but it applies implicit to other disciplines besides law. Science, economics, interpretations of Shakespearean sonnets, history scholarship, philosophy etc. How do you do away with other points of view in anything. Even, or especially, husbands and wives argue from different viewpoints on issues as to finances, children, and other stuff. How do you get away from that except by fiat, which unfortunately is the mindset I see in many feminists, tea-partiers, climate deniers, food faddists, etc.
   1954. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4393059)
That's truly laughable. Now, if that's you, then you haven't begun to master the rudiments of conversation, discussion, debate, argument, or analysis. And to hell with you.


Look in the ####ing mirror you whining baby.

   1955. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:06 PM (#4393062)
That's interesting. What are some?


Pretty much all of the ones that didn't evolve from the English Common Law system.
   1956. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:07 PM (#4393063)
I have no gotcha.


And in post 1949 Lassus and I reach agreement.

   1957. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4393064)
How do you get away from that except by fiat, which unfortunately is the mindset I see in many feminists, tea-partiers, climate deniers, food faddists, etc.


authoritarian governments, most governments in world history, most historical family structures, etc. etc.



   1958. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:08 PM (#4393065)
Yeah, but you're inclined to a sympathetic interpretation of your own positions-- try to have the self-awareness (not to steal too much from Robin here) to see how what you wrote in that thread might come off to someone who's not inclined to such a generous reading.


I don't believe I've complained here or anywhere else about ungenerous readings of my contributions. If I feel someone has read me incorrectly or misrepresented my positions, I will correct them, of course.

And I know you all hate this, but then remind yourself that any outsider would notice immediately that this is a conversation being had exclusively among men, with no interest in or solicitation of female perspectives, and in fact, something that looks like an open hostility toward female voices entering the conversation, at least based on the responses of some here to Devil.


I have never indicated that female voices in general, nor Devil's contributions in particular, are unwelcome or unwanted. What I have done is reply to her posts in the same manner, tone and style that I use with pretty much everyone else on BTF. I would think that I need NOT (edit in of a terribly missing negation) to pull punches in order to save her delicate, feminine sensibilities in that regard.

There's a big, thick line between "thinking" and "discussing in a public forum."


So mind-crime okay, public discourse bad? That's an odd formulation.

You're trying to hide behind the "I have dangerous ideas" defense. Your idea here wasn't as much dangerous as it was foolishly introduced.


Probably a tweak, but that's not how I would frame my engagement here. I don't think the ideas are dangerous. I think refusing to discuss everything openly and with full engagement from all quarters, including the mind-crime contingent, is dangerous. Wounds should not fester. They should be lanced and drained and disinfected with the full light of day.

If you're going to constantly insist on these brutal reality-checks, how about this one? "Discourse has effects".


That's a good point.

The "rape culture" thing is all about recognizing discourse effects, in an attempt to change that discourse away from one that finds the victims' actions worthy of comment ("interesting," as you put it). Again, this is not a complicated nor a new idea, but apparently, it's new for some people here, so will take some getting used to. Next time you feel the need to call a victim stupid because she got raped, just bite your tongue. Or still your fingers, or whatever. Or don't. But don't act surprised if people think you sound like a sexist #### for failing to do so.


I'll consider your remarks on the subject without rebuttal, for now.
   1959. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4393067)
And in post 1949 Lassus and I reach agreement.


let's all sing Kumbaya!

I'll consider your remarks on the subject without rebuttal, for now.


And some of my faith in humanity has been restored. (I'm actually half serious)

   1960. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4393068)
The important thing from the male side of the equation is to drill into the culture the understanding that no amount of "risky behavior" constitutes consent.


I don't know of anyone who would disagree with this.
   1961. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4393070)
Pretty much all of the ones that didn't evolve from the English Common Law system.


My system has one of its roots in the Civil Law system and it uses it. Even in, say, a Japanese before restructuring or a Chinese system now, I bet there are others making an opposite case somewhere, in court or behind door committee. Primitive tribal societies listen to two sides. There are two sides in everything (at least two sides).
   1962. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:12 PM (#4393071)
And in post 1949 Lassus and I reach agreement.

I'll just assume you mean the rest of the post you cut out as well.
   1963. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:13 PM (#4393072)
It self-evidently wasn't the bright line to the teenagers that several people insisted it was. And then they got all pissy when they got called on their nonsense. FFS, their peer taped the thing not even thinking he was witnessing a crime. So if he thought that, how could the perps not be reasonably thought to have believed that?

No, the peer (who only avoided prosecution - for the moment - because he deleted the video he took) claimed while testifying that he didn't think it was rape at the time. He might be telling the truth, but he certainly has motivation to lie. And again, in the video I've twice linked to, other football players from the same team, of the same age and also intoxicated have no problem identifying this as a possible rape. Some of them choose to joke about it, but the idea of it being rape certainly occurred to them.
   1964. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4393074)
And again, in the video I've twice linked to, other football players from the same team, of the same age and also intoxicated have no problem identifying this as a possible rape.

I think according to SBB they weren't old enough to know what they were saying, so it doesn't count that they said it. Or who heard them.
   1965. Ray (RDP) Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:17 PM (#4393075)
I don't know of anyone who would disagree with this.


I'm sure Lassus could find something someone somewhere posted on the internet, and prove you wrong.
   1966. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:20 PM (#4393078)
And some of my faith in humanity has been restored. (I'm actually half serious)


If you know anything about me at all, you know that's as close as you're going to get.
   1967. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4393079)
1885:

Would you have found it more tolerable if I had used the term dicks?

   1968. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4393080)
Andy, if I had a gun at 19 or earlier - I'd've either shot myself accidentally or someone else intentionally. No thank you.

Which shows that your retroactive assessment of your 19 year old self is more clearheaded than mine would be if I'd had your experience.

But don't be confused. I'm also glad that your 19 year old self didn't have a gun, or even a blowtorch, because bad as your experience must have been, it probably beat the consequences of a possible manslaughter rap, however justified your hypothetical manslaughtering of your assailant would have been.
   1969. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4393081)
The important thing from the male side of the equation is to drill into the culture the understanding that no amount of "risky behavior" constitutes consent.

I don't know of anyone who would disagree with this.

Well see post 1830 for plety of people.

Or comments here from SBB, like:
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.
   1970. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:32 PM (#4393085)
There's condemnation, denunciation, disgust, finding fault--and there is understanding of why people feel and act the way they do. They are not mutually exclusive. It might be interesting and edifying to try to figure out and understand why people would feel the way they do in that link to 1830.
   1971. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:41 PM (#4393089)
The important thing from the male side of the equation is to drill into the culture the understanding that no amount of "risky behavior" constitutes consent.

I don't know of anyone who would disagree with this.
Neither did I, but there are apparently many people who would fully disagree with it, and they've made themselves known. There are also many people who partially agree with it, the "Yes, but..." crowd, and they're not helping matters. That's why, as annoying as it is, it must be repeated.
   1972. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:43 PM (#4393090)
There's condemnation, denunciation, disgust, finding fault--and there is understanding of why people feel and act the way they do. They are not mutually exclusive. It might be interesting and edifying to try to figure out and understand why people would feel the way they do in that link to 1830.

The reason why people act and feel that way, has primarily in this thread been referred to as 'rape culture'.

The far more interesting thing to figure out, is how do we change the way people feel about it, since it's repulsive, unfairly pours abuse and scorn on people who are victims and not offenders. And it leads directly to fewer victims coming forward about rape, and thus increases the occurrence of rape.
   1973. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:44 PM (#4393091)
My system has one of its roots in the Civil Law system and it uses it. Even in, say, a Japanese before restructuring or a Chinese system now, I bet there are others making an opposite case somewhere, in court or behind door committee. Primitive tribal societies listen to two sides. There are two sides in everything (at least two sides).

If you're defining adversarial that loosely, than yes, most court cases involving imprisonment are dealing with the question of whether or not to imprison someone. But yeah, France, Russia, etc use some version of an inquisitorial system where the judge is the one gathering evidence. It's not his job to prosecute people however, so he has no duty to try to convict the defendant. There are also a few institutions that attempt to use restorative justice techniques. Some U.S. court systems provide this as an alternative for juvenile defendants, as long as the victim agrees. Truth and reconciliation commissions are sort of attempting a similar thing.
   1974. Lassus Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:47 PM (#4393095)
It might be interesting and edifying to try to figure out and understand why people would feel the way they do in that link to 1830.

The endless words that have been written figuring out why boys and men feel enabled and even justified in committing rape that you disagree with just don't count, then?
   1975. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 07:54 PM (#4393102)
Alright, here's a question for people: let's say you're one of the players who saw the girl stumbling drunk and then got sent the photos from the two defendants, or you're the coach who saw the video (that I've linked) afterwards, do you report it to anyone?

I ask this because I think prevailing attitudes about how much the victim was to blame and how seriously the defendants crossed a line hugely impact how likely someone is to report something like this. And the likelihood of 3rd parties coming forward greatly impacts how comfortable victims are reporting a crime like this.
   1976. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:01 PM (#4393106)
a) Language changes slowly over time. It's not a term I use frequently.
b) Morty can use whatever language he likes so long as he owns it and Jim doesn't tell him to knock it off.
c) Few people in this or any other thread are going to acquiesce to the demand that they withdraw meekly and ask forgiveness. The medium is the message in that regard.


In all that you never gave your thought if you thought any of that was problematic given the context. A, b, and c are all dodges. Of course he CAN use that language, do you think it appropriate? Do you think my calling him out on it OK?

And Morty:
:>) You're beautiful when you engage your inner wimp.


See that wasn't hard. A perfectly good insult and appropriate to the thread. Thanks!

Next maybe we could move up to insults that actually apply, but hey baby steps.
   1977. SteveF Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:10 PM (#4393111)
Without getting into gradations of responsibility regarding activity at a party, I'd still ask - if there is a level of responsibility (your words) that needs to be accepted by the woman being passed-out drunk at a high-school party - is the same responsibility matrix employed in regards to catcalls regarding female attire?


Sorry for my delayed response, Lassus.

I'm not sure I'd use the word 'responsibility.' We don't really have the 'responsibility' to minimize the risk of being victims of a crime. We certainly don't have a legal responsibility. Since that word is doing a lot of the work here, I'm not sure entirely sure how to answer the question.

Can a woman's state of sobriety have an impact on the probability of her being a victim of rape? Yes. Should it? No.

Can how a woman dresses impact the probability of her being the victim of catcalls? Yes. Should it? No.

How do we advise a woman to proceed in such a circumstance? The world isn't the way we need it to be. If we caution them before hand, why are we cautioning them? If they behave in the way that we've cautioned against, have they behaved wrongly or foolishly or inadvisedly? What word is the right word to use here?

The argument has been made that there is no right word because any discourse along these lines contributes to the problem. That's a concept I'm frequently blind to and often give less credence than I should. Perhaps this is one of those instances.

A more interesting discussion could probably be had about why the non-rapists present did nothing to minimize the risk to the girl. It's probably partly a case of social proof. Nobody is really sure what to do in that situation, so seeing others not doing anything is evidence that the correct response is to do nothing.

Perhaps in addition to cautioning daughters about the dangers of alcohol at high school parties we need to suggest to our sons and daughters that they need to be on the lookout to help other people avoid being victimized.
   1978. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:11 PM (#4393112)
No, the peer (who only avoided prosecution - for the moment - because he deleted the video he took) claimed while testifying that he didn't think it was rape at the time.

Typically when a writer repeats and reiterates something someone else said they use "Yes," not "No."

Thus, "Yes, the peer ... claimed while testifying that he didn't think it was rape at the time."
   1979. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:19 PM (#4393116)
The "No" was inserted into the sentence to indicate disagreement with your gumplike assumption that because one of the potential defendants to a crime said something, it must therefore be accepted as pure godlike truth. Getting No confused with Yes is sort of fitting for this thread, I suppose.
   1980. Greg K Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:20 PM (#4393117)
Typically when a writer repeats and reiterates something someone else said they use "Yes," not "No."

Stephen Fry has actually observed the use of "no" to begin a sentence that is intended to reiterate the previous statement. Apparently it comes up quite often in the theatre, when someone is congratulating you on a performance that perhaps doesn't deserve congratulations, they'll often being a sentence, "No, I thought it was great..." as if outwardly contradicting a purely internal negative response.
   1981. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:20 PM (#4393118)
In all that you never gave your thought if you thought any of that was problematic given the context. A, b, and c are all dodges. Of course he CAN use that language, do you think it appropriate? Do you think my calling him out on it OK?


I'm not sure how the conversation could be problematic in any case. I don't think Morty's use of \"#####\" was appropriate or inappropriate. It just was. Your calling him out for it was neither OK or not OK. It just was. This is not something I feel terribly inclined to cogitate up on in order to form some sort of deeply held opinion.

Let me attempt to answer what I believe to be your underlying question, outside of the specific exchange. I don't believe either of you are right or wrong. I doubt there is a right or wrong, per se, to the question. Or any question, at the heart of matters. There's only the discourse and what we take out of it.
   1982. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:23 PM (#4393120)
No, the peer (who only avoided prosecution - for the moment - because he deleted the video he took) claimed while testifying that he didn't think it was rape at the time.

Typically when a writer repeats and reiterates something someone else said they use "Yes," not "No."

Thus, "Yes, the peer ... claimed while testifying that he didn't think it was rape at the time."

What a person says when it is to his advantage, is not necessarily what he actually thought. That's the differentiation between what you originally wrote, and what you just quoted, and hence the 'No'.

Edit: Coke to the darkness.
   1983. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4393121)
What a person says when it is to his advantage, is not necessarily what he actually thought. That's the differentiation between what you originally wrote, and what you just quoted, and hence the 'No'.

Edit: Coke to the darkness.


So in other words, when someone testifies to something under oath, you reserve the right to just ignore it because ... well, just because.
   1984. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4393124)
The reason why people act and feel that way, has primarily in this thread been referred to as 'rape culture'.


That is not an explanation. That's an accusation. You may as well simply respond with a "well, it just is."

The far more interesting thing to figure out, is how do we change the way people feel about it, since it's repulsive, unfairly pours abuse and scorn on people who are victims and not offenders. And it leads directly to fewer victims coming forward about rape, and thus increases the occurrence of rape.


That would be wonderful. But, first, we have to find out the cause. And that cause may be related to an interest that is nurtured by fear. Effective rhetoric in discourse maybe should have more than just to do with rallying troops on your side.



   1985. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:33 PM (#4393126)
So in other words, when someone testifies to something under oath, you reserve the right to just ignore it because ... well, just because.

Nope. I just don't take it as the gospel handed down straight from God.
   1986. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:34 PM (#4393127)
So in other words, when someone testifies to something under oath, you reserve the right to just ignore it because ... well, just because.

No I reserve the right to consider what their motivations are. There's nothing particularly magical about testifying under oath. Lots of people lie. People are especially likely to lie when it comes to things that can't be proven false, such as their own thoughts.

Edit: Coke to FPH
   1987. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:39 PM (#4393129)
1971:

In law or as an ingredient to an event?
   1988. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:45 PM (#4393134)
No I reserve the right to consider what their motivations are. There's nothing particularly magical about testifying under oath. Lots of people lie. People are especially likely to lie when it comes to things that can't be proven false, such as their own thoughts.

Sure, and let's further ignore that the testimony was included in an article in which two or three reputable professionals who work with and/or observe teenagers reiterated the same point.

But, hey, what do they know as compared with a sprightly coven of offended internet ideologues?
   1989. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:47 PM (#4393136)
No I reserve the right to consider what their motivations are.


You might consider the motivations of other parties.
   1990. SteveF Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:49 PM (#4393137)
Spright is an archaic variant of sprite and spritely is an archaic variant of sprightly. That just seems wrong.
   1991. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:51 PM (#4393139)
I'm not sure how the conversation could be problematic in any case.


And that is the problem (from my point of view). I think use of that sort of language contributes to the parts of our culture I found problematic (not causes, but at least degrades). Reasonable people could disagree on that, but for purposes of this thread it is my most proximate example of the "Rape Culture" I was speaking about.

It is not people empowering rapists, but it is helping (in a small way) to create an environment where that sort of thing is more likely. And no I am not blaming Morty or any such thing, just stating my opinion. It is Political Correctness in all its glory (and yes I know it is terrible to be PC in any way, so sue me).

But no I am not looking to get your opinion if I was right or wrong, just looking to get your sense of appropriate. From what I read it seems anything legal (not banned) is de facto appropriate. I understand that view, but in this case I don't agree.
   1992. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4393140)
Sure, and let's further ignore that the testimony was included in an article in which two or three reputable professionals who work with and/or observe teenagers reiterated the same point.

But, hey, what do they know as compared with a sprightly coven of offended internet ideologues?

I think it's possible that he didn't know what he was witnessing met the legal definition of rape. I don't know why that's particularly interesting, but sure. I'm fairly sure that he knew what he was witnessing was not cool. He did delete the video the next morning after all. If he was not aware of even that, then I think that's really sad. I don't think that makes the boys who did it even close to not guilty of rape though. Again, the legal standard is a reasonable person standard. I'm quite comfortable saying that a reasonable 16-year-old would have known the girl was not capable of consent.
   1993. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:53 PM (#4393141)
From what I read it seems anything legal (not banned) is de facto appropriate. I understand that view, but in this case I don't agree.


More often than not my opinion is that if you don't get caught, it's not illegal either.
   1994. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:54 PM (#4393143)
You might consider the motivations of other parties.

Like whose, Morty?

Also, care to answer the question I posed in @1975?
   1995. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 08:57 PM (#4393145)
1991:

Hey, wienie, answer the question posed in 1967.
   1996. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:02 PM (#4393148)
I don't know why that's particularly interesting, but sure.

Because it impacts whether the line is bright, which you and others made a big deal about, insuinuating that disagreement was some sort of crime against the ghosts of Abner Doubleday, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams.

The line wasn't bright. It was blurred. The teens were confused about the gravity and import of their actions -- again, no surprise, since they aren't adults.

If he was not aware of even that, then I think that's really sad.

I can certainly sign up for that.
   1997. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:03 PM (#4393149)
Also, of note, I find pretty much all attempts to denature reality and pretend that we're not animals in the world to be stupid on its face.
   1998. Darkness and the howling fantods Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:10 PM (#4393154)
Because it impacts whether the line is bright, which you and others made a big deal about, insuinuating that disagreement was some sort of crime against the ghosts of Abner Doubleday, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams.

The line wasn't bright. It was blurred. The teens were confused about the gravity and import of their actions -- again, no surprise, since they aren't adults.

No, you're confused. The legal bright line is whether they knew or ought to have known that she was incapable of consent. They don't have to know that they're committing rape. The ought to have known prong means that if a reasonable 16-year-old would have known that she was incapable of consent, then the defendants ought to have known.

I don't think it's a remotely controversial statement that a reasonable 16 year old knows that someone who is puking repeatedly, mumbling incoherently and passing in and out of consciousness is incapable of consent. You appear to disagree. I find that troubling.

Edit: included quote
   1999. Morty Causa Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:20 PM (#4393161)
Like whose, Morty?


Like the other parties--you know who the parties are in a case?

Also, care to answer the question I posed in @1975?


Yes, I would. Glad you asked. In fact, you're not the first to pose it here. It has been in the back of my mind to say something about that. It's not as easily answerable as one might think on first impression.

Of course it seems so from the perspective of being a textbook good citizen in an ideal world. So here goes:

Alright, here's a question for people: let's say you're one of the players who saw the girl stumbling drunk and then got sent the photos from the two defendants, or you're the coach who saw the video (that I've linked) afterwards, do you report it to anyone?


Yes, you report. First, as to the school mates, to your father/mother since you're a child. Second, to an attorney, and third, you and them to the authorities. Not necessarily in that order--and, of course, for some this wouldn't be possible. But, generally, yeah.

The coach, yes, to the authorities.

I ask this because I think prevailing attitudes about how much the victim was to blame and how seriously the defendants crossed a line hugely impact how likely someone is to report something like this. And the likelihood of 3rd parties coming forward greatly impacts how comfortable victims are reporting a crime like this.


I think that is certainly a consideration.

But you know what considerations also may apply, and this is like that Kitty Genovese case, where no one helped her or called the police, remember?

In short, people are afraid of getting in trouble, even if they aren't complicit in the crime, there's always the feeling they can be made complicit, so they have a first instinct that tells them not to get involved with the police. Too, getting involved with the law can be messy and prolonged--it can even lead to you getting sued, not to mention simply knocked around by the system. I think some people sense this instinctively, whatever their age.

This is as it would involve innocent non-party children (or those Genovese witnesses). But, the coach really has no recourse but to report it. He, I'm sure would consult his superiors and maybe a lawyer.

Still, every bystander's first reaction is to want to fade into the woodwork. To not get involved into something of which they are mere pawns (hopefully). That is of not benefit to them personally and that can have negatives. Something like that even plays into the minds of people who have crimes committed against them. It may inhibit their reporting it. The law is messy, even degrading in some psychological way to everyone who comes before--the wicked and the holy. It's that way because it doesn't assume things ahead of time that we all do in real life. It doesn't know you are pure and righteous and it shouldn't presume it. That makes all innocents (not just alleged victims) wary.

   2000. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: March 20, 2013 at 09:21 PM (#4393163)
No, you're confused. The legal bright line is whether they knew or ought to have known that she was incapable of consent. They don't have to know that they're committing rape. The ought to have known prong means that if a reasonable 16-year-old would have known that she was incapable of consent, then the defendants ought to have known.

No, I'm not confused, and can't be since I first brought up the "blurry line" and it never meant the strictly "legal" line (*) Nor could there have been any reasonable misunderstanding about my definition, particularly since it was expounded upon along much the same lines as encapsulated in the Huffington Post article. You don't get to get all hissy, troubled, and offended about something you didn't bother to try to understand.

Essentially everything I noted about the incapacity of teens in the context of the Steubenville events was laid out in the Huffington Post article and I'll let that be the final salvo.

(*) Not that that isn't blurry, too, but I'm not going to belabor this anymore.
Page 20 of 30 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(4013 - 10:15am, Aug 01)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogCliff Lee Re-Injures Elbow
(21 - 10:10am, Aug 01)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogThe Dark Side of Booming Local TV Deals
(6 - 10:08am, Aug 01)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(562 - 10:07am, Aug 01)
Last: J. Sosa

NewsblogAmaro says Phils didn't overvalue players at Deadline | phillies.com: News
(4 - 9:59am, Aug 01)
Last: Batman

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(153 - 9:43am, Aug 01)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-1-2014
(2 - 9:36am, Aug 01)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1076 - 9:34am, Aug 01)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogMariners notebook: Zduriencik fires back at critics | Mariners Insider - The News Tribune
(4 - 9:23am, Aug 01)
Last: Avoid running at all times.-S. Paige

NewsblogRanking The Prospects Traded At The Deadline - BaseballAmerica.com
(2 - 9:23am, Aug 01)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogA's Acquire Lester, Gomes For Cespedes
(131 - 9:20am, Aug 01)
Last: Russ

NewsblogPlayoff contenders load up on dizzying Deadline day | MLB.com: News
(1 - 8:58am, Aug 01)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogJULY 31 2014 OMNICHATTER/TRADE DEADLINE CHATTER
(366 - 8:49am, Aug 01)
Last: zonk

NewsblogBrewers acquire outfielder Gerardo Parra from D-backs
(6 - 8:00am, Aug 01)
Last: Harveys Wallbangers

NewsblogRuben Amaro Jr., on standing pat at deadline
(13 - 7:45am, Aug 01)
Last: Jeltzandini

Page rendered in 0.8502 seconds
52 querie(s) executed