Page #162
Pages: #1... #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 ...#187|
Started by #610414 [Ignore] 14,May,20 02:51
New Comment Rating: 2 Similar topics: 1.Food stuff 2.STUFF, JUST STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 4.A Forum Topic 5.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
There are few "pure" 1's in either category.
only registered users can see external links
For your information I saw Notynyt’s post yesterday and I researched the Two Fundamentals of Indian Culture. 1. Anekantvad 2. Nyaya Philosophy (Hinduism, Buddhist, and Jainism) on line. I had no knowledge of what it was about but I did get a sinopsis and concluded it had nothing or almost nothing to do with my post. My original post was simple, good or bad, criminal or non-criminal. That’s it.
I also felt that Notynyt was talking down to me suggesting I should “do some studying” before I could debate this point . I don’t put him down but not on this thread. I say to Notynyt, start your own thread here or in another thread.
Phart, the pic above is my opinion. You have bitched ad infinitum about demonstrations going bad. So now put it out. Do you or don’t you agree with the pic?
You go and agree or debate Ananas. But it’s not about my thread.
I see that everyone wants to hedge their bets. No balls to stand and support or not outright.
Good or bad. Legal or illegal. You need a judge to tell you what to think?
I’ll throw it back at you. It’s about common sense.
There is no straight answer.
I don't need a judge unless I am in the court room.
please?
IF it was that simple,there would be no legal system,there would be no confessionals at catholic churches. We would simply punish ourselves if we did wrong.
Some people are uneducated,don't know right from wrong.
Also, you see someone go into a fast food store , come out with food, and give it to a homeless person. Do you say, “there must be an ulterior motive or wow, that is nice?”
Notice there are no social extras here. Only you. Not me. Not Bella. Not Trump. Just you. What do you say about the above pic?
Not being a asset to the crook.
When I see someone handing food to a homeless person I just think ,well they are doing something good and I keep on going. Handing them money, I think,what a waste,he will just buy liquer.
As for your pic,I have answered that several times,there is no straight answer.
Try just using a few of the simplest basic principles of ethics on these issues;
The golden rule; the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated'.
Utilitarianism; the principle of maximizing happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.
Negative utilitarianism; the principle of minimizing the total amount of aggregate suffering.
You will soon find out that people will disagree about if crime hurts more people than fighting crime mercilessly, or if protests hurt more than the injustice they are protesting. People don't even agree on which actions should be considered crimes and if injustice is actually happening.
The supreme court is not involved in ethics. Their responsibility is judging cases on the current law and principles of the rule of law. They're also quite divided ideologically.
The US drops the charges if cost of prosecution exceeds value of stolen property. The case of that I am aware of was 24 years ago involving state own property and 2 thieves. Caught red handed, arrested ,day of trial, judge throws it out for that reason. Thieves laughed at my coworker that had to take a day off using his vacation leave to testify and the deputy's that arrested them. They should have at least served time or been fined or something. NOTHING.
WHY is it stealing is a important crime in 1 place and not another? Stealing is Stealing and those that steal should be held accountable.
So yes,I see your point Ananas,I wonder what could be done to fix the issue?
who are they representing?
The political choices that benefit the rich and big companies often don't benefit normal people. That's why stealing one handbag can put you in prison for years,
while stealing thousands of dollars from millions of people will at most get your company fined, which you can pass on to your customers, your shareholders and often even the taxpayer.
Why then should the rich and big companies have more power than anyone else?
In democracy, the rule of law should be governed by one man, one vote.
A new Florida law “creates civil immunity for people who drive into crowds of protesters, meaning they won’t be sued for damages if people get hurt or killed if they claim self-defense.” Claiming self-defense is easy, so as a fact it is now legal to run over peaceful protesters.
Why anyone wants to block a hwy to protest is beyond me.idiots with a death wish I reckon.
Without knowing everything about what Cosby was convicted of, I agree with my right-wing friends to some extend.
What I've heard is that Cosby and his friends had very wild parties with alcohol and drugs and there was lots of sex going on. Young women who attended those kinds of parties should have known what was going on. If they then have lots of alcohol, drugs and sex, than what criteria can we use to determine whether the sex was *r*a*p*e?
Did they think what happened at that time was *r*a*p*e just after it happened or did they come to the conclusion it was *r*a*p*e years later?
I do think it is *r*a*p*e when a sober person has sex with an unconscious person that didn't consent to that (beforehand). However, the problem with drugs and alcohol is that it messes with your memory and your reasoning. The fact that a person cannot remember what happened, is not evidence the person was unconscious.
People often regret things they've done under the influence of alcohol or drugs,
which they did willingly while being under the influence.
Cosby admitted using drugs to have sex with women. I'm just not so sure about how (un)willing the women were. I'm sure they regret having been with him now, maybe they regretted right after it happened, but I'm not sure if they showed they didn't want what happened when it did or if they were actually incapable of showing they didn't want it.
That doesn't mean it's not *r*a*p*e, if a man has sex with a drugged or drunk woman who doesn't say no. Everyone has a responsibility to think about the intentions of the woman too. But what was the intention if a woman who knowingly attends parties with lots of alcohol, drugs and sex?
If someone has more information about things Cosby did that went outside my criteria,
I would like to know.
only registered users can see external links
Ananas. Check this out.
Did she still have drugs in her system? Did she still have the clothes with semen stains on them? That was not enough to remove the president of the USA in another case?
There are times that you just have to cope with reality.And the reality is here that Cosby is a free man now.And even in 2004,he was 67 years old. What in the hell is a much younger woman even doing near a 67 year man alone if she thinks NOTHING is going to happen?
Did they ever accuse him before and were then not listened to? If they lived their lives
for all those years, without saying anything, I'm very sorry, but than I think the pain is retrospective and induced by the trials.
Especially for things that happened over 50 years ago, we should acknowledge that the culture has changed in all those years. Back then, what husbands did daily to their wives might even be considered r@pe by current standards.
If there is evidence and witnesses testifying on how the women were traumatized all those years, I stand behind them, but I still think they should have acted sooner.
Let's at least make sure women will be listened to, from now on. Every women who has encountered sexual impropriety should be able to talk to a trustworthy, impartial, legally trained adviser, to assist in dealing with the accused. This assistance should not be limited to a legal process. Men should also be demanded to live up to misconduct that is not prosecutable. In that case, a therapist guided conversation between the victim and the perpetrator is surely much more healing than a failed lawsuit.
But do consider that former slave owners and traders were not all put in jail,
after slavery was banned. (I think comparing the historical treatment of women
with slavery is not far fetched)
Of course r@pe is awful and it has of course always been awful. But your example is not alike this case. I was arguing on the information known to me, which is Cosby gave them drugs on a party and had sex with them. He admitted to giving them drugs and having sex with them, that's all I knew.
I was explaining the different levels of bad I thought applied to this case:
1) He secretly gave them drugs and r@ped them while they were unconscious.
2) He secretly gave them drugs, but then they 'willingly' had sex with him.
3) He offered them drugs, they took it and 'willingly' had sex with him.
4) They just assumed he gave them drugs, but they were just drunk and 'willingly' had sex with him.
Then also considering the levels of participation:
1) They were struggling and asking him to stop, during the act.
2) The let him do what he want, but knew they were getting r@ped.
3) They cooperated during the act, but regretted it immediately when the intoxicant wore out.
4) They cooperated during the act, but only started regretting it much later, for instance because of shaming by their friends.
5) They cooperated during the act, but only started regretting it decades later, because of culture changes and stories of other women who had negative experiences with him. Maybe even financial motives came into play.
I have done some research since then, and it looks a lot more serious. Still, I don't make a habit of blind trust, so the accusers should have at least some corroborating statements from people they told the stories too, not long after it happened.
I've found several lists of all the accusations, but unfortunately they all say nothing about corroborating statements from other people than the accusers. The sheer number of accusations are off course corroborating by themselves.
A technicality does not disprove those accusations.
1) He secretly gave them drugs and r@ped them while they were unconscious. This is true.
Then also considering the levels of participation:
1) They were struggling and asking him to stop, during the act. This one s true.
As far as any other level of bad is concerned, that would be YOUR speculation.
As far as any other level of participation is concerned, law enforcement advices women that they should submit if flight is impossible.
YOU SOUND LIKE THE DEFENCE LAWYERS OF THE SIXTIES. YOU WORE VERY REVEALING CLOTHING AND YOU LET HIM GO TO YOUR APARTMENT, THEREFORE YOU WANTED HIM TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU
I won't violate your freedom of expression ,but please refrain from interfering in ours.
pass out drunk and not being harmed with a finger.
But it does make it harder to accuse someone of r@pe when you get r@ped.
No one knows what is true, except Bill Cosby and most of the victims. The women who were under the influence of drugs might not even know themselves.
If they then also not talk about it for years or decades, at some point the law cannot help them anymore.
Why would the law treat r@pe differently than any other crime. If you tell a judge that a person stole $10,000 from you thirty years ago and you can't prove it, you're not getting your money back, even if there are 59 other people claiming
the same, with all the evidence in the world.
In this case, I assume there was not enough evidence to make his conviction stand, without his own previous statement being admissible anymore.
Heavy, please don't do that. Angels opinion does not hurt you personally.
Women need to fight,resist,not provoke.It is common sense.Why do you think parents try to teach their daughters to dress modestly? DUH! So they don't draw termites out of the woodwork.
BUT if that had happened,i would encourage her to to use the legal system first to try to get some justice. if that didn't work, I would find the sumbitch and take his dick off with a chainsaw myself. rap3 is a bad thing.
BUT go back and think about it a minute.Males can be raped to. And they get very little respect even when they come forward. Why? Because a man is expected to be able to defend himself and must be a wimp if he can't.
FIX that stigma while you are at all this fixing.
Another thing. Explain to women that sex if protection is used,can be fun and they should try it sometime even if the opportunity is not always with Prince Charming.Rap3 happens alot of times because of a persons inablity to aquire sexual favors in a legit way.Legalize prostitution and rap3 cases would plummet.
BUT as always,chucky schumer is trying to legalize dope and continue to prevent women from making money using natures assets.
R@ped boys might even have a harder time proving their r@pe.
And legalizing prostitution will make r@pe cases go down.
I off course disagree that legalizing drugs is bad. People who are taking drugs are
at most hurting themselves. The majority of drug users are not harming anyone. However, drugs being illegal is harming society, because it's facilitating crime.
Since criminalizing drugs has never stopped the use of drugs, it's only logical to legalize it. That will eliminate the biggest revenue model of crime. People will not be sent to prison anymore for drug use, which is more destructive to their future than the drugs itself. Drug addicts can ask for help without fear of getting arrested.
Drug users can buy drugs of constant quality and efficacy, so they won't overdose or get poisoned. Without criminals as the supplier, the government can effectively apply age restrictions on the sales of drugs. Drug addicts will no longer be extorted by criminals. The attraction of drug addicts to crime will be reduced. Taxes on drug sales would finance the rehab aid to drug addicts. Medical benefits of certain currently illegal drugs can be more easily explored. And people will just have the FREEDOM to sometimes temporarily alleviate the horrible existence that crony capitalism induced exploitation has brought them.
There will always be drugs and drug addicts in either situation, but by legalizing drugs you will minimize their harm on society, just like you did with alcohol.
I honestly think the problem is handled the wrong way.
They like to arrest the dealers,because they can steal their assets and the lawyers make a killing.
BUT if they would arrest the end user,for simply using it,put them in JAIL,which would help in detoxing their bodys,it would do more to fix the problem.NO customers, much fewer dealers.
I believe you, but drugs IS ILLEGAL. Did that make it better?
In 2001, Portugal decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs as part of a wider re-orientation of policy towards a health-led approach. Their Drug-related deaths DROPPED DRAMATICALLY. So drugs are still illegal in Portugal, but the use of those illegal drugs is almost the lowest in all of Europe. And their drug deaths per capita is almost the lowest in all of Europe.
The United States has more drug deaths per capita than any European country. Almost twice as much as the worst European country!
Normally Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland are doing good in statistics,
but not on drug use or drug deaths, because they have quite strict laws against
drug use and enforce them.
So if you want less drug deaths, decriminalizing drugs is the best solution.
only registered users can see external links
They want to flirt,act silly,dress half naked in public,then whine when they get a bit of "Unwanted" attention.And wonder why they get raped.
If you swim in shark infested waters with a bleeding hemroid,you probably are fixing to become shark shit.
Strange how the 2d admin is antique,but let a woman go in court 75 years and then repeat that same case today, the results would be the same. The man was guilty based on her words in most cases.
Worse damage yet,is done in the court of public opionion. let a man simply be accused of something by a woman and he is guilty regardless of the courts findings,the public will say he is guilty 50 years after he's buried,rather he really was or not.
Funny thing though,alot of the men, primarly black men ,that were convicted of **** 30 years ago or so, have been found innocent by dna testing.You think the accuser says,"I am sorry" Hell no.
A publicity program, perhaps with magazine ad's or tv ad's explaining it is ok to report wrong doing as soon as possible after the event perhaps?
New Comment Go to top