|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 12, 2010 23:24:49 GMT -5
Ive noticed the rape apologists logic follows some of the same retardedness of burglars who sue people for getting injured in the burglary attempt, of the morons who sue fastfood restaurants for being fat. Dressing slutty may be stupid, but it doesnt excuse some one from exercising restraint. Silly me i thought humans were capable of self control... EXACTLY. Except, you know, burglars often win those cases. Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 14, 2010 0:46:47 GMT -5
Ive noticed the rape apologists logic follows some of the same retardedness of burglars who sue people for getting injured in the burglary attempt, of the morons who sue fastfood restaurants for being fat. Dressing slutty may be stupid, but it doesnt excuse some one from exercising restraint. Silly me i thought humans were capable of self control... EXACTLY. Except, you know, burglars often win those cases. Ugh. Actually i was doing some legal research, and thankfully, i think that is a myth; i know they due sue the home owners, but I'm pretty sure they don't win. Either way its the same retarded logic that rape apologists employ.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 14, 2010 1:03:41 GMT -5
EXACTLY. Except, you know, burglars often win those cases. Ugh. Actually i was doing some legal research, and thankfully, i think that is a myth; i know they due sue the home owners, but I'm pretty sure they don't win. Either way its the same retarded logic that rape apologists employ. Whoa, really? Hot dog! That probably doesn't apply to people who rig their properties, though...but hey, one less thing for me to worry about. Not that I, you know, have anything worth stealing. But yeah.
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Mar 14, 2010 2:30:10 GMT -5
Actually i was doing some legal research, and thankfully, i think that is a myth; i know they due sue the home owners, but I'm pretty sure they don't win. Either way its the same retarded logic that rape apologists employ. Whoa, really? Hot dog! That probably doesn't apply to people who rig their properties, though...but hey, one less thing for me to worry about. Not that I, you know, have anything worth stealing. But yeah. I *think* booby-trapping is illegal. I recall hearing about a case where a police officer was killed when investigating something. But this is me thinking I remember something someone said about some guy who did some thing. So I wouldn't really trust it more than I could throw it.
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 14, 2010 10:38:50 GMT -5
Whoa, really? Hot dog! That probably doesn't apply to people who rig their properties, though... It doesn't. We read a case in Torts where someone set up traps in their second house to catch trespassers. A trespasser was seriously injured, and successfully sued the homeowner.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 14, 2010 10:56:38 GMT -5
I recall a case in Texas where a man saw two people stealing things from his neighbors house and threatened them with a gun if they didn't stop. They didn't, and the guy shot them in the back, killing them. The court found that this was perfectly legal in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 14, 2010 20:57:54 GMT -5
As screwed up as the justice system is it wouldn't surprise me if there was a case where the burglar sued and won. I just haven't found a case using an academic database. Its good, but I'm sure by no means exhaustive.
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on Mar 17, 2010 17:13:58 GMT -5
Well, I rig some of my stuff in a long corridor, so that when someone picks it up, a large boulder is released, and starts to chase the thief. It's completely foolproof!
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Mar 18, 2010 7:22:21 GMT -5
Rape apologists rise and fall from fame or infamy, most of them basically do it for the attention. I remember back in the '90s when Jim Goad got famous for the infamous Rape Issue number 4 of his Answer Me! Zine. This guy is still unapologetic about the fact that he used to go around in a T shirt that said "Rape" in bold letters, beat the crap out of his girlfriend and got fan mail from serial killers.
It got banned in lots of places because it was basically censor -bait, it contained lots of misogynist rants, rape fantasies and pro -rape screeds, and some self - loathing rants from his girlfriend Debbie that he later went to jail for beating up. I remember a lot of hip bookstores were selling his stuff at the time, for the shock value. Kind of reminds me of the old punk rocker G.G.Allin who used to pepper his songs with pro sexual - violence lyrics.
Why do people pay attention to this shit? Because some misanthrope is trying to be shocking and succeeds in getting people to pay attention to them. After all that's what it's all about, it's an ego - wank, horrible things are shocking and they get our attention. People even speculate as to whether there's some substance behind all the rage and nastiness.
Typically there isn't! It's just some jerk saying "look at me" in a loud voice despite the fact, or perhaps because of, the fact that there ain't much to look at.
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Mar 19, 2010 11:40:39 GMT -5
tolpuddlemartyr, while that is true for many of these people, especially online posters etc, some of these people really do believe this shit, and are in positions to make that a *BIG* problem. Just look at the example of the judge I pointed out earlier to show that these people are a really problem and can't be just written off as "doing it for the shock value".
|
|
|
Post by SCarpelan on Mar 19, 2010 16:55:27 GMT -5
If I ever made a thread about the Finnish justice system I might actually use this particular title. The attitude towards rape by the judges - even the female ones - is appalling. More than half of the convicted rapists get away with no actual jail time.
Anyway, I'm optimistic that the situation will change in the near future. The legal experts, human rights activists and the general opinion all agree that the situation is intolerable. It just seems like the judges live in the world of their own and just keep giving sentences from the most lenient end of the scale. I'm all for giving them a lot of legal space to make their own judgements but when they lower the sentences based on logic like "he's a respectable family man" or "the duration of the act was short" I just want to bash them in their thick heads with their own law books.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on Mar 19, 2010 17:20:31 GMT -5
True enough safaraz, in fact those who promote this stuff as an ego - wank are actually doing something far worse. They are giving sanction and comfort to those who are doing it for real, after all the creep I mentioned got fan mail from real - life serial killers. I think it's all dangerous stuff, sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't.
Doesen't make the people promoting this sort of garbage any less the pathetic tossers if they mean it though.
|
|
|
Post by shadowpanther on Mar 21, 2010 11:43:45 GMT -5
Well, I rig some of my stuff in a long corridor, so that when someone picks it up, a large boulder is released, and starts to chase the thief. It's completely foolproof! Never mind that. What you want is to dig a pit, fill it with spikes, coat the spikes in manure and then cover it with a rug. The hoodlum falls in, *BANG* "Who's there!?" *BANG BANG* Oh wait. I live on the third floor. Scratch that plan.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 22, 2010 2:12:12 GMT -5
Actually that's kind of a poor example since she really was asking for it. literally. She even claimed to be older. Also his sentence was later retroactively doubled, if that makes you feel any better. I know statutory rape is still a crime, but when people pretend it's literally the same as rape, they're not doing anyone a favor. If anything it muddies the waters and makes both issues harder to tackle.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 22, 2010 7:47:06 GMT -5
May I see what you read, perv? All I can find out about the girl is that she was assaulted, wore frilly bras and thongs, and was 10 years old.
|
|