Consent Club

[thegreekdog]

I really don't know what you think this is about.

It appears to me that you believe there is a vast government operation, perpetrated by some combination of the Obama administration, prosecutors, and judges to not only redefine the term "rape" legally, but to ensure that all juries are void and that all evidence is removed except for whether consent is given. And you think this already happens and happened. And you think defense counsel is also irrelevant. And you've provided no data at all to back up your assertions.

I think this is about a warped view you have the US justice system. I understand that one can make a conclusion about a particular scenario (i.e. the one about Occidental College in Connecticut) and say that an unfair result occurred (assuming, of course, that we have all the facts and do not call into question the motivation of The Weekly Standard). I do not understand how one can jump from one particular scenario to an overarching conclusion (see paragraph above) with literally no evidence or data.

[_sabotage_]

Good for you. I guess we read different papers and read different things from the same article. There have been a multitude of "stories" reported from Rolling Stone to Wired to Huffington Post suggesting that there is a rape epidemic.

But I guess you don't think the Hegelian dialect is a thing. I do. We are surrounded by outcries of a crisis, people react as had Mrs, you, and others. And then a solution is introduced as has begun in California.

Is California not worthy of your attention? Does Obama investigating college non rape so that it's called rape not strike you?

How do you think we managed to get the most prisoners in the world?

[thegreekdog]

Good for you. I guess we read different papers and read different things from the same article. There have been a multitude of "stories" reported from Rolling Stone to Wired to Huffington Post suggesting that there is a rape epidemic.

But I guess you don't think the Hegelian dialect is a thing. I do. We are surrounded by outcries of a crisis, people react as had Mrs, you, and others. And then a solution is introduced as has begun in California.

Is California not worthy of your attention? Does Obama investigating college non rape so that it's called rape not strike you?

How do you think we managed to get the most prisoners in the world?

Multitude - "a large number"

We got the most prisoners in the world because of the war on drugs.

Stop it. You're really grasping at straws now. Put up some statistics or stop the nonsense.

[_sabotage_]

Google: sexual assualt task force

[thegreekdog]

Google: sexual assualt task force

That doesn't have the data showing that rape convictions have increased.

[_sabotage_]

Are you just trolling?

I have said the "new" definition as being applied to "college" students that will change how the "future" generation views rape.

I have said they are "conditioning" people with this "new" definition.

[thegreekdog]

I have said the "new" definition as being applied to "college" students that will change how the "future" generation views rape.

I have said they are "conditioning" people with this "new" definition.

Both of these are untrue - you have not said that. This is apparently your most recent position. My response to this is - I don't care. Unless and until rape convictions begin to increase substantially (as a percentage of reported rapes) as a direct result of a change in definitions, I will not care about this issue.

[_sabotage_]

I have repeatedly stated that the definition of rape is being changed.

It's being changed for the younger generation. Once this new definition has been changed in the minds of juries: ie in the next couple of years, then people will be going to prison for what we had always not considered rape.

Once the new definition has been established, then it will be easier for the prosecutors to convict. This is being done by Obama and states like California are jumping in head first. All Ivy League schools except Harvard already have this definition. It is now being put in place by media and universities.

The are slow boiling the public. The are using the Hegelian dialect.

Why are they doing this? If you study climate change and the main proponents, they want a reduced population.

How do you think China implemented the one child policy?


Go back and reread this thread.

[thegreekdog]

I have repeatedly stated that the definition of rape is being changed.

It's being changed for the younger generation. Once this new definition has been changed in the minds of juries: ie in the next couple of years, then people will be going to prison for what we had always not considered rape.

Once the new definition has been established, then it will be easier for the prosecutors to convict. This is being done by Obama and states like California are jumping in head first. All Ivy League schools except Harvard already have this definition. It is now being put in place by media and universities.

The are slow boiling the public. The are using the Hegelian dialect.

Why are they doing this? If you study climate change and the main proponents, they want a reduced population.

How do you think China implemented the one child policy?


Go back and reread this thread.

No thanks. I'm done. I'm happy with my current position and you haven't been able to demonstrate anything that would convince me otherwise.

[_sabotage_]

You are happy with your current position of: it depends. I'm happy with that to.

What did you think was happening in this thread?

What was happening is that at the start, Mets and Mrs were having a go at me for not liking the "new" definition, which is:

1. Alcohol or other intoxicants revoke consent.
2. Without affirmative consent, it is rape.

They are ok with this definition. This is the law that is coming into being. And once there, juries, prosecutors, judges and defense lawyers will all be subjected to it.

I said, f*ck that. They say, AOK, happy happy.

Mrs says this makes me a victim blamer. I say no, I just want to know there was a victim and there was a guilty party. They say, but it's the law. I say, f*ck that law.

You, I don't know what you think has been happening in this thread, and I feel bad for you.

[_sabotage_]

Hey Mrs, did you notice in the article where he states:

she absolutely did not understand at all

Interesting how he didn't qualify this like his: I know I said no.

Interesting how he explains he got erect:

An erection is not a dowsing rod of intention, it's a bundle of nerves that can be manipulated by anyone who halfway knows what they're doing.

No calls for help, no "she forced me" anywhere. Just him having his pecker played with. This guy who understands force, involuntary and molest as seen:

How about the scene in Forrest Gump where Jenny molests the clearly uncomfortable, mentally challenged Forrest by forcibly placing his hand on her breast until he involuntarily ejaculates?

http://www.cracked.com/article_21884_5- ... z3QvwjUvPU

In 1994, Rollingstone described it as:

In a college dorm with Jenny, who lets him touch her breast, the virginal Forrest ejaculates instantly, losing her interest and his self-respect.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/revi ... z3QvxA3B5j

How times change. So this guy who has a girlfriend who left him for cheating on him because of this, who thinks far differently to Rollingstone, who is getting played with pleasurably by a girl who absolutely doesn't understand he has been in his hazy, incoherent mind saying no, who makes no indication such as calling out, trying to keep up his trousers, trying to get away, but is letting her play with his dick got raped because...he was drunk?

Do you think if it were and man (and he isn't bi) that he would have been as laissez faire, or do you think he would have made sure the man knew he didn't want to have sex?

[mrswdk]

Once this new definition has been changed in the minds of juries: ie in the next couple of years, then people will be going to prison for what we had always not considered rape.

Juries can't just make up their own definition of what constitutes a rape. They have to stick to the legal definition.

What was happening is that at the start, Mets and Mrs were having a go at me for not liking the "new" definition, which is:

1. Alcohol or other intoxicants revoke consent.
2. Without affirmative consent, it is rape.

Feel free to quote me on that.