runfromyourwife wrote:


[/b]Well we will have to leave that one then, because though I can appreciate to some degree the point on the 'hypocrisy' element, I think it is still a big stretch in credibility taking it to the point where you would argue it should provide a basis of defence for consentual sex with an underage person.[/b]

Quote:

Yeh, but do you know if this girl was raped? Where you there?

With all due respect Run is it beyond you to appreciate how general points can be drawn from a situation without necessarily establishing the true facts of that situation?
In any case, where have I said that there was definitely a rape? (though as an aside, because of her age at the time there would be a 'statutory rape' irrespective of consent...No?
And before you come back with 'That is what you implied', let me say that is a case of 'that is what YOU inferred' by my comments.

I accept that my comments (well most of them at any rate) would not be valid to this particular instance if rape DID NOT occur, but it is the general principles of the thing that I am putting across - i.e. General principles where rape DOES occur in similar type situations.....Does that make sense?

In the same way many of your comments would not be valid to this particular instance if rape DID occur....Would you agree?
Of course neither of us know exactly what went down, but that does not stop us arguing a case from a particular stand point does it?
This is what debating is about....putting across opposing views. Where have I claimed that my views are being put forward on the basis of the facts of this particular case?[/b]

Quote:

Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to rape.

[/b]Again, when I say that, I am reinforcing my point that RAPE and SEX are different and that just because a woman consents to sex, should not be a defence for a man raping (something she did not consent to) her. Just stating GENERAL PRINCIPLES.....not making claims that I know definitely there was a rape.

I hope this is clear because it would make for a much more worth while debate if there was not so much attachment to things we can only assume at this stage, and more focus on the general principles that can be picked out of the situation.

Finally, if you are not going to debate on the hypothetical, then this debate is effectively at an end. For seeing that neither of us KNOW the true facts of the case, we can hardly debate on those now can we?
[/b]

[size=3]Respect

@RFYW said"Right - I'm only going to address this section of your post because this to me is the part most relevant to the discusion -I do not say that to be dismissive - it is simply -

my opinion!

I will be brief I've made my position clear and see no needto change it.

But as to your comments above- you have obviously completely misunderstood what I've been trying to say.

Perhaps I haven't said it very well.

No where did I say that women forfeit their rights over their bodies or the protection of the law even where they can be said to have acted irresponsibly.

I certainly did not say women should not be protected from sexual harassment in the workplace.

This deliberate misrepresentation of what Isay is getting tedious.

All I have called for from the beginning of this debate is justice and fairplay to both men and women in the matter of rape.

If a woman acts irresponsibly then sheshouldreceive some condemnation for that. I never said that she deserved to be raped or that the law should nor punish her attackers.

All I have said is thatif we are going to criticize men for being getting themselves in bad situations we should do the same to the womenwho find themselves insuch situations.

That's fair!

You are not interested in fairness -and that's your prerogative. I am, especially when a Black Mans liberty is at stake.





@Run no I did not say refering to your other previous post or infer that you were agreeing with rape not for a second in any shape or form. Even though on a broader a point you will not find many rapist participating in such conversations who would.

But what I said it can be infered given the way you have applied equality or use it to suggest that one cancels out of the other. It's a bit like the father's right debate. The system is biaed in favour of women regardless of the existence of equality else where and done so for a good reason. The fact that is is abused for all kinds of reasons does not negate the bias and I will bet my life it will never be reformed to the satisfaction of fathers because of the technical difficulites in actually being able to design such legislation. Rape is exaclty the same in terms of how the system work.

Lets take this discussion to its origins to remind ourselves. You can take a number of stances when viewing such an issue in the absence of hard facts.

1. Hold a positive nuetrality until further information.

2. Make broad general observations about a) male behaviour in question, b) female behaviour in question, c) both.

I forsaid reason am more intersted in the male behaviour. You then posted condemning this lyniching of a black man and used part of my post to illustrate what you called the lynch mob. That is the history as well as calling people "hypocrites"that is thebackground bro.

The assumption being the only legitimate view was your own and in my case I had fundamentally contradicted some important thing I have said on this matter. That is what being a hypocrite is roughly. I and others chose to focus on black male behaviour which we view as more important in the balance of theequation which is a legitimate view. On single parents issues my emphasis is elswhere. Nobody was being unfair to anybody, that conclusion wasyours given your premise that the only legitimateposition by inference was your ownconfused3.

In fact you could have focused on the behaviour of the female in an attempts to provide balance if that was your view or priority. But you cannot in all honesty or logic turn around and then say other people are being unfair to black men.

Can I comment on something that jumped out at me when Iclicked onto this thread when you said:

"Ok let me spell out the connection.
If a girl goes to her doctor and asks for condoms - the doctor should find out who is having sex and with her and the law should prosecute whoever it is.

But that doesn't happen. Why not? It is hypocrisy to criminalise under age sex in one of set of circumstances and condone it in another. If you still don't see the link then it is beyond my ability to explain it to you.


It is this type of reasoning which I taken issue with you in my responses. It don't follow in logic or truth. I don't want to get into the statutory rape argument because I feel it is red herring and diversion from the issue at hand personally.

But correct some doctors do act in the manner identified by yourself as they do in matters of abortion. Doctors are a rule unto themselves in many cases and their own personal beliefs or judgements on ethical issues such as these are often questionable.

However, such practice is not standard medical practice. So you cannot even generalise within the profession itself. Then from there to make the leap to societal attitudes and further to the personal values of the person making the argument. That is pure mental and logical gymnastics.

So even if all doctors acted in the manner described what has that to do with price of hard dough bread or my personal values or our collective values as black peopleconfused3. Me personally not going to even entertain the argument because respectfully it doesn't make sense.

With respect it as if you are arguing with yourself by constantly constructing false propositions and from there extending them away from the actual arguments being proposed?

Just an observation that struck me from the first couple of lines on that post.

Peace out

FB

WELL....................I dont know what to say but she might of been a girl that was interested in the gangster wannabe guys.



You didsay she was Gang -Banged I ment Gang- Rapedlol