Rape Victim facing fine for naming victims

Killer Wench

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought you had just resolved him of all responsibility.

Who? What post?

Killer Wench

Killer Wench wrote: »

Who? What post?

Didn't ya say that if you leave the doors open, it's not your fault.. Sorry for banging on about it but it's turned out to be more interesting than the story we know nothing about.


Edit it was yawka posted that.. why are you replying to me?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

In your first post, not only do you manage to make the argument of "it wasn't really rape" and then go to "she might not have been assault" (despite the fact the guys DID plead guilty) and then finally to making her case out to be a few harmless drunken photos and summed with a nice manner of say "don't drink and you won't have this happen".

Eh... what????!!!!!

I never even came close to saying it wasn't rape Very, very

I was just trying to clarifty what was on the table, because there is no link in the OP, the title states "rape", the op states "sexual assualt". Neither had been confirmed and there was no mention of a guilty plea anywhere in the opening quote.

In other words, there was absolutly no evidence at that point. You really are clutching at straws if you think that point makes accusatinos of anything.

Killer Wench

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't ya say that if you leave the doors open, it's not your fault.. Sorry for banging on about it but it's turned out to be more interesting than the story we know nothing about.

Go back up and re-read the thread. I think you have me confused with someone else?

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Neither had been confirmed and there was no mention of a guilty plee anywhere in the opening quote.

So next f**king time go back and read the article instead of second guessing things you have no knowledge over.

They pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

You ignored the entire article and made it seem like she was making the whole thing up and it was a harmless photo taken because she passed out

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So next f**king time go back and read the article instead of second guessing things you have no knowledge over.

They pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

You ignored the entire article and made it seem like she was making the whole thing up and it was a harmless photo taken because she passed out

Okay, you're worming out here because yo can't find a post that doen't exist. the first one you quoted, does nothing of the sort of what you accused me of.

The bit in bold is a case of serious, serious misreading.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Where, in the opening post, does it say they pleaded guilty? It says the struck a plea deal.

Yes... they struck it and were charged with felony sexual abuse.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Yes... they struck it and were charged with felony sexual abuse.

Post edited, see above. Again, please find a post where I accused the victim of anything and do not confuse it with a request for information before making a judgement.

yawha

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Bit of a difference there in terms of conscious state...? But I would argue, yes, you have a responsibilty to protect youreslf and your possessions. But try and tell your insurance company about the theft and see what they say.

Well, it was just a simple analogy. Point being, morally and legally, there should be no obligation to protect yourself if you do not want to. Of course, in the real world, it is certainly wise to be cautious and take protective measures, but a lack of caution does not impart responsibility for what happened onto the victim should someone else harm them.

An insurance company is a business with whom you essentially enter into a contract with, not a moral or legal entity. As part of this contract, they may expect a certain degree of protective measures taken by you, yes, but I don't think it's really a relevant comparison.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd love to see you react to a housemate doing this and you losing your laptop and money.. Would ya not be a bit pissed of at him? Or would ya just say, not your fault.

That's a strawman. It was a simple analogy to illustrate a point.

There are of course certain prudent measures which have become social norms and are undertaken by almost everybody - locking up one's house for example. In a society with these norms, there would be an implicit mutual agreement between housemates that the house would be locked up when anyone left. Anger towards someone who didn't do this could be legitimately based on breaking this agreement, but not attribution of any blame for the crime to them.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Post edited, see above. Again, please find a post where I accused the victim of anything and do not confuse it with a request for information before making a judgement.

The moment you refused to read the article, assumed that a pleal deal for sexual assult was just "pictures" that she was responsible for for blacking out and then questioned when it wasn't taken to court when it was clearly stated it was.

So either you're trying to blame it all on her and are backtracking now or you're just ignorant of the article and decided to post without reading it and are trying to backtrack.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

yawha wrote: »

Well, it was just a simple analogy. Point being, morally and legally, there should be no obligation to protect yourself if you do not want to. Of course, in the real world, it is certainly wise to be cautious and take protective measures, but a lack of caution does not impart responsibility for what happened onto the victim should someone else harm them.

There is no obligation to do anything. I would argue that a lack of caution DOES imply repsonsibility, certainbly in your theft case, but as I said repeatedly, you're implying blame here, i'm arguing responsibility. You have a reponsibilty to protect yoru posessions and yourself (if you want to stay safe and healthy and keep your possessions), but that does not imply blame if you do not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

The moment you refused to read the article, assumed that a pleal deal for sexual assult was just "pictures" that she was responsible for for blacking out and then questioned when it wasn't taken to court when it was clearly stated it was.

So either you're trying to blame it all on her and are backtracking now or you're just ignorant of the article and decided to post without reading it and are trying to backtrack.

Doesn't matter whether I had or had not read it, or read it incorrectly: the post you quoted was a request for clarity and information as to what happened and what the result was, and you really are grasping at straws if you continue to argue otherwise.

Now stop worming out and either find a genuine post of mine that blames the victim for being sexually assaulted or back down.

Ryuji_w

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

Now they are subjected to mob mentality and those who will take the law into their own hands (angry friends or family) which could end up with both of her attackers ending up in the hospital or worse dead because of what seems like a drunk mistake.(a sick twisted mistake or intentional as we don't know how drunk they were so could well be intentional)

Not saying they are not responsible for what they did (they are mistake or not) but that's for the law to deal with which is why she was put under a confidentiality order/gag order so there would be no vigilantes or mobs attacking the young lads who are yet to be sentenced

Killer Wench

Ryuji_w wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

Now they are subjected to mob mentality and those who will take the law into their own hands (angry friends or family) which could end up with both of her attackers ending up in the hospital or worse dead because of what seems like a drunk mistake.(a sick twisted mistake or intentional as we don't know how drunk they were so could well be intentional)

Not saying they are not responsible for what they did (they are mistake or not) but that's for the law to deal with which is why she was put under a confidentiality order/gag order so there would be no vigilantes or mobs attacking the young lads who are yet to be sentenced

I've said that she took vigilante action in my first post, and my subsequent posts - along with others - mention that the judge has neither accepted or rejected the plea agreement.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether I had or had not read it, or read it incorrectly: the post you quoted was a request for clarity and information as to what happened and what the result was, and you really are grasping at straws if you continue to argue otherwise.

Now stop worming out and either find a genuine post of mine that blames the victim for being sexually assaulted or back down.

No matter what way you look at it, you ignored the article and tried putting your own fúcked up spin on things and then at the end you tried to pass it of as a "don't get drunk and these "pitctures" won't be taken".

Had you of read the article you wouldn't have posed the question and equated that being sexually assaulted while passed out is the same as getting drunk and having pictures taken of you. Or at least I hope so.

Ryuji_w wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody has mentioned how that girl has now, pretty much allowed those two lads to be judged by everybody who knows them without the trial being finished.

I'd imagine the pictures in question have a lot to do with it.

mauzo

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether I had or had not read it, or read it incorrectly: the post you quoted was a request for clarity and information as to what happened and what the result was, and you really are grasping at straws if you continue to argue otherwise.

Now stop worming out and either find a genuine post of mine that blames the victim for being sexually assaulted or back down.

Its not about backing down. Hes not the first person to find fault with your posts.

Maybe you should consider reading your posts before you submit them, seeing as at least 3 people have picked you up on them and you keep playing the 'quote me' card.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

No matter what way you look at it, you ignored the article and tried putting your own fúcked up spin on things and then at the end you tried to pass it of as a "don't get drunk and these "pitctures" won't be taken".

Had you of read the article you wouldn't have posed the question and equated that being sexually assaulted while passed out is the same as getting drunk and having pictures taken of you. Or at least I hope so.

I'd imagine the pictures in question have a lot to do with it.

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get.

What's happened here is that you haven't found a post and jumped on this one with a deliberatly false take in it on order to save face. here's the post again:

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No source links, so have to ask the obvious question...

... was she actually raped? Or sexuallly assaulted?

Did she even make these claims?

I mean, there appears to have been no rape trial. The focus of the issue seems to be on them taking pictures and that's it. And there's an obviouls solution to not having embarrasing pictures of you taken when your passed out at parties....

line one, pointing out the vagueness of the article.
line two, requestion clarification
line three, request for clarification
paragraph four, pointing out responsible actions at parties. Doesn't even hint at blaming anyone for anything.

Now, find a post that blames. This one is a non-started. Last chance.

Ryuji_w

Killer Wench wrote: »

I've said that she took vigilante action in my first post, and my subsequent posts - along with others - mention that the judge has neither accepted or rejected the plea agreement.

ah I saw that, i was thinking more along the lines that they might be physically assaulted by a male relative or male friend rather then the kind of vigilante action that you are thinking of.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

syndeyfife wrote: »

Its not about backing down. Hes not the first person to find fault with your posts.

Maybe you should consider reading our posts before you submit them, seeing as at least 3 people have picked you up on them and you keep playing the 'quote me' card.

No, they haven't. The accused me of blaming, I pointed out that I was dealing with responsibility, not blame. People have not "picked me up" - they have misread posts that I wrote - and accused me of writign things I did not write.

The "quote me" card as you call it, is not a card, it is a request for soemthing I can respond to! I can not respond to claims I didn't make in the first place until someone specficially highlights a claim and tells me where I made it!

yawha

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

There is no obligation to do anything. I would argue that a lack of caution DOES imply repsonsibility, certainbly in your theft case, but as I said repeatedly, you're implying blame here, i'm arguing responsibility. You have a reponsibilty to protect yoru posessions and yourself (if you want to stay safe and healthy and keep your possessions), but that does not imply blame if you do not.

What is your interpretation of the word "blame"? I feel like we're getting our wires crossed somehow. "Blame" to me, is simply responsibility for something negative. What is the difference between "blame" and "responsibility" as you've used them in the post I've quoted.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

That's about as wrong as you can possibly get.

What's happened here is that you haven't found a post and jumped on this one with a deliberatly false take in it on order to save face. here's the post again:



line one, pointing out the vagueness of the article.
line two, requestion clarification
line three, request for clarification
paragraph four, pointing out responsible actions at parties. Doesn't even hint at blaming anyone for anything.

Now, find a post that blames. This one is a non-started. Last chance.

Line six: refusing to read the fúcking article and putting your own spin on it.

Then, after that, you started arguing with people who tried to point out that the was clear eveidence to what you stated.

But you kept going on and ignoring the article.

Why?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Line six: refusing to read the fúcking article and putting your own spin on it.

Then, after that, you started arguing with people who tried to point out that the was clear eveidence to what you stated.

But you kept going on and ignoring the article.

Why?

No, you could argue misreading the article, fair enough, but "spin"? Come on!

The fact that this is the best you can do proves my point taht I never said anything even close to what you said I claim. Also, if the evidence is so clear, how come you can't find it?

Fouth and last chance. I'm going offline in a minute.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

yawha wrote: »

What is your interpretation of the word "blame"? I feel like we're getting our wires crossed somehow. "Blame" to me, is simply responsibility for something negative. What is the difference between "blame" and "responsibility" as you've used them in the post I've quoted.

Responsiblity is the responsibilty for the state she found herslef in (defenseless).
Blame is the responsibility for what happened to her.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No, you could argue misreading the article, fair enough, but "spin"? Come on!

The fact that this is the best you can do proves my point taht I never said anything even close to what you said I claim. Also, if the evidence is so clear, how come you can't find it?

Fouth and last chance. I'm going offline in a minute.

Read the fúcking article and then I'll talk to you. You can PM me if you like because I don't want to drag the topic off any further.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Read the fúcking article and then I'll talk to you. You can PM me if you like because I don't want to drag the topic off any further.

I have. Twice since we started. But this is not about the article. I didn't write the article, so you won't find anything written by me that blames the victim in the article.

You can accuse me all you like of misreading the article, but I never denied that. I admitted it. Doesn't change any of my posts thogh, which is what you should be looking at.

Killer Wench

I'm sorry, but have the last several posts been about?

Tombi!

Killer Wench wrote: »

I'm sorry, but have the last several posts been about?

Basically Icky Poo decided to post asking such rubbish of if it was really sexual assault, then finished off with a smart comment about how she could stop having pics taken when drunked.

Then for the last few pages he's been trying to double back on what he said and twist what he meant.

And then we all got off topic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Basically Icky Poo decided to post asking such rubbish of if it was really sexual assault, then finished off with a smart comment about how she could stop having pics taken when drunked.

Then for the last few pages he's been trying to double back on what he said and twist what he meant.

And then we all got off topic.

Sweet Jesus, no.
I asked for clafication of whethe it was sexual assault or rape or neither, I wasn't actually denying somethign took palce, I was looking for clarification of what took place.

THIS is what I you to find a post of.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

So why are you trying to make it sound from the beginning like you felt she was responsible for what the guys did to her after she passed out?

You then took the first one you could find and twisted that to suit your argument. Badly.

Tombi!

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Sweet Jesus, no.
This is what you accused me of saying.

Sigh, you just said in a PM that you misread the article. So your first post is ignored.

If only you had said that so much sooner, we wouldn't have wasted so long with you seeming like you advocating sexual assault if someone is passed out and drunk.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Sigh, you just said in a PM that you misread the article. So your first post is ignored.

If only you had said that so much sooner, we wouldn't have wasted so long with you seeming like you advocating sexual assault if someone is passed out and drunk.

It's pretty obvious what I wrote. there are question marks after both for a reason.

You are the one who keeps goign back to it, I was trying to take you away to somethign moer relevant. Or do you accept that i'm not blaming the victim then and that this

So why are you trying to make it sound from the beginning like you felt she was responsible for what the guys did to her after she passed out?

is wrong?