Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Mar 19 02:15:23 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / Sebbing
delude
Member
Tue Jan 23 19:30:58
"So? Are you entitled to stick your dick into any stranger who is undressed? Dude, she said "slow down, lets chill" - that indicates "not comfortable with going further", no matter how far she had currently gone."

After she said "slow down" did he stick his dick in her? No. Is it established they were unclothed which indicates possibly they were engaged in some form of sexual activity? Yes. Did he ask her to go down on him and she admitted to doing it? Yes.

Consent for the action established. You claimed there wasn't.

"Do you find that happens a lot to you? I think, generally then, you shouldn't be casting this whole episode as a description of a normal healthy sexual encounter. Do you do "the Claw" too?"

I am sorry that you are incapable of thinking that when two people are unclothed making out that there is some sexual activity that can occur. I am sorry that you cannot fathom that even though they may object to intercourse but can be open to other sexual play. It's like "fooling around" is new grounds for you. I will blame monogamy lacking sexual exploration for your sheltered views on sexual engagements.

But for you to equate that I think his behavior is appropriate versus my objectivity of the actions presented by the author and not agreeing that it is sexual assault and you throwing a fit over and accusing everyone of deviant behaviors and calling them rapists... is hot rod level idiocy. In other words, don't get all bent out of shape if no one is agreeing with you. Say for two people. I guess that it counts for something.

"Your entire point 1 is only relevant if her being naked *prior* to saying "slow down, lets chill out" in someway gainsays that. "

Even being naked, engaging in sexual activity, consent or changing your mind can happen at any moment during the course. Again, doesn't negate the fact that she engaged in oral sex after being asked to do so. This establishes consent and mutual engagement during this time. With your admittance that they were naked together, would it be reasonable to think that there was sexual play between and when the build up was occurring and the suggestion of sexual intercourse was at the plate was only then where she may felt like not going that far. He may be thinking of getting to that level after they have been messing around, but she wanted to slow down. So most probable went back to messing around, which entailed oral play, by the both of them. Once again especially him asking her to perform it on him and she admitting doing so and proceeded to do so. (Consent.)

"He wasn't going down her before though. They were kissing. And you noted that consent can be withdrawn at any time. The *best* way you can take "slow down, chill out" is "lets keep doing what we are doing now". "

Once again, "slow down" was suggested when he said he was going to get a condom. He went down on her. But this was poorly timeline in the article, which is being disputed. Because now we don't have an explicit consensual play by play. And this is where you took advantage of it saying that he went down on her without her consent. Then denying he even asked her to go down on him, to which she agreed to do so. And THEN finally admitting she was asked and did so. You still claim she didn't give consent to do so. But the reality is that she admitted to doing it after being asked which by definition is being consensual based upon the action. So Ansari has the right to think there is consent and not sexual assault as you claim there has been.

"I gave you an example in the other thread of how people can comply with actions under what they feel is duress. You chose to side step the issue completely. It stands. Without access to her inner monologue, what has happened here is that by going down on her, after being told she doesn't want sex, she's now doing so under duress. Consent cannot therefore be assumed simply from compliance. "

She may have felt she was under duress. He isn't a psychic or mind reader as you previously used and said, presuming that is an agreement. Nonetheless, to him it was consent because SHE WAS ASKED, and if someone is ASKED to do something and they do it. It would give a reasonable person that they are consenting to do it. May not like it, but did it.

And there you go again. You are ignoring they were naked and already fooling around. You are ignoring that a critical detail was omitted at this juncture, yet only being revealed later in the article that in fact they were already unclothed. You are insinuating again that no one can object to sexual intercourse and still be open enjoy other sexual play. Consent was given though, Seb. She was asked to give oral and admitted doing it. Regardless of how she felt internally. She did it. That is consent to the action. You cannot have it both ways.

"That's just a fact Delude. You may disagree. So be it. You are wrong and there are plenty of examples of the law taking a dim view of this kind of line of argument. "

My boss asks me to grab a report and bring it to his office. I grumble to myself that he could do it himself. But I agree and do it. I gave consent. I am under duress or pressure because I don't want to do it, I know he can do it, but he is my boss so therefore, I could be fired, demoted, or written up, but I consent to grab the report and bring it to his old, fat decrepit ass.

"Either you don't know what consent means, or you don't know what coercion is. There is no such thing as coercive consent. If you think there is, by god never get into a situation where you think you have it because you'll be abusing someone and committing one of the most serious crimes on the books. "

I am using coercion synonymously with "pressure." But I digress if you are using it as he was holding her against her well. Then I am in disagreement with the word 'coercion' as you recklessly use it. He did not prevent her to leave, force, or gotten violent with her. He didn't threaten her, nor indicated any consequence to her. If that is what you are now claiming, then you are being dishonest and again interjecting something that is not in the article. The same article that you are basing your opinion. Your opinion, seb. Opinion.

"o what? I don't see any mention of this in the legal figure for sexual assault. Why would she not confront her abuser? "

Since you play to play the psychology card in many of your discussions. It would be more probable that a victim would be too scared to do so after such a traumatic event. That in this case you are using at your disposal by saying that the only reason she engaged in any sexual activity was because she was threatened or faced consequences, or was fearful. Then it would be rather odd that the seriousness of all of that, only then she would face her abuser so soon after without fearing reprisal.

"What would the police do? There's not going to be physical evidence to substantiate her lack of consent. Waste of fucking time isn't it. Police are going to say "this isn't provable - it's your story against his" "

So now victims should not go to the police after they are assaulted?

The problem is that he didn't give his side of the story according the article or not given the chance. So you are more accepting of her account versus his? Bit of hypocrisy don't ya think?

And to your inference that it would be pointless to report it. See Cosby. kthxbye.

"re victims prohibited from sharing their story? Is it unlikely that a victim would not want to share her story? "

I didn't say that. And I've addressed this.

"Honsetly, if I was her - absolutely. Once I was out of there and assured of my physical safety, I would be mad as hell. I'd confront him about it. I wouldn't bother with the police because there would be zero chance of a prosecution, and I would spend days of my time giving statements to no avail, while interviewers would repeatedly infuriate me by questioning my story in every way (as you are doing now). "

Zero chance. See Cosby. Zero chance. Ask the victims of pedo priests. Zero chance. See Nassar.

I know Seb. objectivity is a mother fucker based upon an authors narration of a story that contradicts your opinions that you are claiming are facts.

"I find it frankly odd you think this behavior is questionable. "

I question the intent. Based on; watching tv with him still on the couch, texting him the next day. Getting upset that he was on an awards show with a lapel pin that infuriated her and only then going to a journalist with her account anonymously.





Seb
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:30:09
In the other thread we ended here:

Seb Member Wed Jan 24 15:27:50
Delude:

...
You simply said "well, she was naked, and who knows, perhaps she consented but didn't mention it".

The former being irrelevant and the latter being an invention.

Delude Member Wed Jan 24 15:33:48
That is a false representation of what I said. I've addressed this at the top of the thread you know the post that you been ignoring

Is it really a false representation?

No, it's an entirely accurate representation.

http://www...hread=81893&time=1516630041029

Sun Jan 21 17:26:47
The problem is that you're omitting a detail that no one specifically knows and the author of the article may know of and may have omitted.

^[You are invoking a detail that doesn't exist in the record, i.e. you are inveting a hypothetical event that has been "ommitted", or perhaps simply never happened at all]

Delude
Member Mon Jan 22 07:58:11
"They were kissing. He suggested sex. She said no. He performed as sex act on her anyway."

They were kissing, he suggested sex by stating grabbing a condom. She said slow down lets chill. [An event missing]. He performs oral sex and asked he to reciprocated. She agrees and does.

Fixed.

^[once again, in the square brackets, you have suggested there is a missing event, for which you have no evidence whatsoever. I.e. an invention].

Seb
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:31:26
Cue cries of how I am misrepresenting people by directly quoting them, in context.

The men-children are not big on accepting responsibility for their own thoughts and words.

If you made a mistake, admit it - happens, we can move on.

But don't sit there pretening I'm making this up when I can actually put a link and quote it.
Delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:35:14
No that is me pointing out that the order of events, the actions that were taking place appear to not make sense for him to go down on her without any prior mutual actions.

You have portrayed it as he prevented her from resisting and called it an assault. That is you inventing said event where I have maintained that it cannot be determined.

Good job on ignoring all other points.
Delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:36:34
At least 5 to 7 or he posters have called you out in the course of the multiple threads of you making shit up. Either we are delusional. No pun. Or you're obtuse.
Seb
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:43:53
"No that is me pointing out that the order of events"

No its not.

But ok, explain to me the then, explicitly, exact events that constitutethe "detail that no one specifically knows and the author of the article may know of and may have omitted" and the source of that information.

And, if different from above, the same for the thing you refer to as "[An even missing]".

If these are not inventions, they must be found in the source material, you will be able to quote them directly, refernce them and provide links.

If you can't, defacto, they are hypothetical things you are inventing.

Easy enough to prove me wrong. Put up or shut up.
delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:48:49
Again, This was addressed in the OP, the previous thread that just filled.

You have refused to address those very same points that I have mentioned just moments ago.

It is like you have a mental block of ignoring the very idea. Nay, let me stop. You have blatantly ignored my stance that it is hard to make the determination that he outright assaulted her by performing oral sex. To which you are making the claim. I made no claim, I said, hard to determine due to the timeline and a detail possibly omitted. Context, words, and deductive reasoning means everything. Things that you are apparently lacking.

Let me repeat myself again to address these things:

I said: Even being naked, engaging in sexual activity, consent or changing your mind can happen at any moment during the course. Again, doesn't negate the fact that she engaged in oral sex after being asked to do so. This establishes consent and mutual engagement during this time. With your admittance that they were naked together, would it be reasonable to think that there was sexual play between and when the build up was occurring and the suggestion of sexual intercourse was at the plate was only then where she may felt like not going that far. He may be thinking of getting to that level after they have been messing around, but she wanted to slow down. So most probable went back to messing around, which entailed oral play, by the both of them. Once again especially him asking her to perform it on him and she admitting doing so and proceeded to do so. (Consent.)

And I further said:

Once again, "slow down" was suggested when he said he was going to get a condom. He went down on her. But this was poorly timeline in the article, which is being disputed. Because now we don't have an explicit consensual play by play. And this is where you took advantage of it saying that he went down on her without her consent. Then denying he even asked her to go down on him, to which she agreed to do so. And THEN finally admitting she was asked and did so. You still claim she didn't give consent to do so. But the reality is that she admitted to doing it after being asked which by definition is being consensual based upon the action. So Ansari has the right to think there is consent and not sexual assault as you claim there has been.

This pretty much covers all that you are repeating again that you took out of context and misrepresented.
delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 16:59:02
"No its not.

But ok, explain to me the then, explicitly, exact events that constitutethe "detail that no one specifically knows and the author of the article may know of and may have omitted" and the source of that information.

And, if different from above, the same for the thing you refer to as "[An even missing]".

If these are not inventions, they must be found in the source material, you will be able to quote them directly, refernce them and provide links.

If you can't, defacto, they are hypothetical things you are inventing.

Easy enough to prove me wrong. Put up or shut up."

How about stop taking my sentences and splicing them up that removes context and stop being dishonest, eh guy?

It is called deductive reasoning and piecing the clues together based upon the writing of the authors.

At first part of the article, it was hard to determined they were unclothed, especially at the criminal part when they were kissing and messing around as when he suggested about intercourse and her response about slowing down in regards to that. He then proceeded to perform oral sex. How the author wrote it would present that he arbitrarily did so. But later in the article it was revealed at that point in time they were already engaged and were actually unclothed.

A point made by me, where I was making fun of you. That it is rather odd to be unclothed and only making out and not expecting anything else. Touching boobs, kissing all over the body, caressing. These are all common actions that take place during such a course. But you disagreed and practically indicated it is impossible for that to happen.

We reached the point that he is performing oral sex. HE ASKED HER TO RECIPROCATE...let me repeat this. ASKED. As in making a request. She admitted doing so and consented. And another point only later brought up by Cold Rod that she was asked again and she complied, which would leave a reasonable person thinking she consented to perform the sexual act. Where you have falsely claimed that she did not give consent.

I never said it was NOT a hypothetical. I've mainintained it is a possibility. I've used such language. And used it to counter your assertion that he arbitrarily did it or went against her will.

In her own admittance she never indicated this. Even by the author, who attempted to portrayed it as such and in "Grace's" text.

No, sir. It was you that invented she was sexually assaulted by him performing oral sex.
delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:02:32
....without conclusiveness.
Cold Rod
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:10:23
Seb is Euro Hot Rod.

Sebbers! Can you show any of us where she claimed she was sexually assaulted or was raped? As you claimed she was?
Cold Rod
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:16:05
Also the article is eloquently worded to absolve her of any personal responsibility. I find it peculiar that her apprehension started at the dinner by her own admittance and still chose to go back to his place. She even took pictures as if she know this could be something...
delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:18:01
I pointed this out to Seb as other journalists were critical of her writing style.

Of course Seb was like "so?" Because he lacks objectivity or deductive reasoning.
delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:21:59
I am sure it also bugs him that other feminists, including those at the women's march that recently occurred questioned "Grace's" intention and how it was being attached to the metoo movement. Though they agreed she had the right to share her story.

In Seb's world they must be rapists too.
delude
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:23:53
Anyways, I am going to make dinner and relax. I will refer to my OP for any idiotic claims Seb makes as they already addressed the points he will bring up again. The same OP that he is still ignoring.
Cold Rod
Member
Wed Jan 24 17:31:47
"I pointed this out to Seb as other journalists were critical of her writing style.

Of course Seb was like "so?" Because he lacks objectivity or deductive reasoning. "

And he bought it hook, line, and sinker as he jumped on the bandwagon.
Cold Rod
Member
Wed Jan 24 18:32:27
Uh oh! Objectivity got her in trouble!!

"Maybe this is callous to say, but labeling every unpleasant sexual encounter an assault infantilizes women. I've been a victim, I understand how coercion and power dynamics work, but I also believe in female agency, and I feel insulted by the direction this discussion has taken."

http://www...ory-shows-why-language-matters
TJ
Member
Wed Jan 24 19:26:01
Informative perspective. Thanks for the link.
Cold Rod
Member
Thu Jan 25 05:17:22
No problem
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 25 10:23:26
delude:

"It is called deductive reasoning and piecing the clues together based upon the writing of the authors."

In other words, you are inferring that somethign exists which is not in the text based on assumptions you have chosen. I.e. You are inventing it.

"At first part of the article, it was hard to determined they were unclothed, especially at the criminal part when they were kissing and messing around as when he suggested about intercourse and her response about slowing down in regards to that. He then proceeded to perform oral sex. How the author wrote it would present that he arbitrarily did so. But later in the article it was revealed at that point in time they were already engaged and were actually unclothed."

The fact that were partially clothed and kissing does not mean that she consented to oral sex.

"That it is rather odd to be unclothed and only making out and not expecting anything else."

Is it unreasonable to think that maybe she changed her mind?

"We reached the point that he is performing oral sex. HE ASKED HER TO RECIPROCATE..."

By which point he had already been told to slow down and chill out, but had already gone down her.

Unless there is something that happened between those two events: her saying chill out, him going down on her - for which there is no evidence at all - then two things flow:

1. When he went down on her, he could not have then known that afterwards, when he asked her to go down on him, she would have said yes. Therefore, this information cannot be cited by him to say that at the time he went down on her, that he had reasonable grounds to believe he had consent.

2. Because he had gone down on her after she refused sex, there are reasonable grounds to think at that point she felt her options were constrained and was attempting to manage a very difficult situation under pressure.

We have covered all this already.




Seb
Member
Thu Jan 25 10:28:05
I want to go into this "naked and kissing" thing in more detail.

They were naked, yes. The were kissing, yes. They may likely have been fondling, yes.

He then said "I'm going to get a condom".

She then said "Woah, slow down, chill out".

Are we really to think that the fact that she was naked and kissing him to this point is a clearer signal than her words?

Now, the question here is, which is the reasonable interpretation that Ansari could have taken

"This woman doesn't want to have my dick inside her, but she's totally saying yes to oral I'll go down on her"

"This woman has asked me to slow down, which means I should not do more than we are currently doing at this point in time".

No court is going to buy that being told "Woah, slow down, chill out" is reasonable grounds for someone to think they have permission to stick their tounge in someone else. Even if they were naked and kissing previously.
Cold Rod
Member
Thu Jan 25 12:54:43
Seb rod couldn't answer the question lol
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 25 13:06:22
Also he doesn't seem to understand what condoms are for and what "getting one" insinuates. Yes seb, certain people differentiate between vaginal sex and oral sex. Goes back to your difficulty understanding people are different.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:23:26
How does one insert a tongue between her closed thighs? How do you insert fingers repeatedly or for that matter any member into a mouth of someone unwilling? How do you remove clothing from someone unwilling? She has no reasonable defense as a normal functioning adult, which there is no reason to believe otherwise. She could have left at any point she chose as well as stop any previous advances at will.

She was a victim of her own behavior and that is what I believe any court would reasonably determine. Her own admission of the transpired events exposes her consent for whatever gain she had in mind at the time.

It would be an unlawful justice for a court arriving at any other decision in my opinion. That is my position from reading the article presented until additional evidence is presented. Her behavior makes it difficult for authentically raped and abused women. No one should assist in compounding the difficulty.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 25 13:30:53
TJ
The argument is that when he didn't understand that "slow down" when offering a condom meant not no to everything and _stop_. So she played along fearing for escalation and violence.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:33:07
Nim:

I understand that. But asduming consentin to oral sex isn't the reasonable alternative when your dick has been ruled out.

I'm not sure why this is unclear to you.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 25 13:33:29
"She was a victim of her own behavior and that is what I believe any court"

Nobody believe she was raped, not even her. She had text evidence of him more or less saying I am sorry I made you feel that way. Has Azis been arrested or interrogated? No. Just an anonymous hit piece by a vindictive girl who got disappointed.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:35:37
TJ:

She'd sitting on a countertop. Presumably he's already between her legs.

Do we really need to rehash "why didn't she struggle" and why that's generally not accepted as a defence in rape cases.

Freezing is a common response.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 25 13:37:01
"alternative when your dick has been ruled out."

In the vagina. Slow down doesn't mean stop, literally it does not.

Seb, I am not comfortable with you raping the precision of language so you can argue what we all know is an indefensible position.
Seb
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:37:19
Cold rod:

Which question - you're a troll account, I don't normally bother reading your posts?

10:1 I've previously answered it.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 25 13:39:21
"why didn't she struggle"

Sebing.

A simple no would do or "stop". But she didn't say that did she?
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:40:50
I know what the argument is. :)

She played along(pun intended)until she finally decided to leave ignoring the excuse of escalation and violence, which doesn't appear to have happened. As they say, timing is everything, eh?
Cold Rod
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:43:28
"Which question - you're a troll account, I don't normally bother reading your posts?

10:1 I've previously answered it. "

WHy do you lie or would you like for me to show you the instances of where you have answered me before.

And no you didn't answer it. Try again.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Thu Jan 25 13:44:50
That is another detail that is missed. Aziz stopped when it was obvious to him she wasn't into it and didn't get violent.
TJ
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:51:47
"Freezing is a common response."

I might be inclined to agree if it had become violent.
delude
Member
Thu Jan 25 13:52:54
Oh seb, dear seb, this is going to hurt....

"In other words, you are inferring that somethign exists which is not in the text based on assumptions you have chosen. I.e. You are inventing it. "

Seb doesn't understand or know words. Check.


delude
Member
Thu Jan 25 14:08:09
Pressed the enter too fast, let's try again.

Oh seb, dear seb, this is going to hurt....

"In other words, you are inferring that somethign exists which is not in the text based on assumptions you have chosen. I.e. You are inventing it. "

Seb doesn't understand or know words. Check.

You may want to check that word "invent."

"The fact that were partially clothed and kissing does not mean that she consented to oral sex.

Is it unreasonable to think that maybe she changed her mind? "

1) That is the information that we don't particularly know, but more probable than not, the action was already taking place that lead up to it.

2) I have never discounted that at any moment she had the prerogative to change her mind. But this is hard to determined especially when it was requested for her to give oral sex to him and she did so. (consent)

3) The problem that you are having is that you have concluded she didn't give consent to it. My point, and it appears that everyone that has bothered reading your tripe and responded, reasonably believe most probably sexually activity was already mutually occurring, the main point --> It is a possibility this was given but cannot be determined due to omission of details. This isn't conclusive, was you are committing, but us objecting and remain open minded.

Which I may point out was already addressed in the OP and leads me to this part:

"Unless there is something that happened between those two events: her saying chill out, him going down on her - for which there is no evidence at all - then two things flow: "

That is the point, Seb. I said this in the OP:

****Once again, "slow down" was suggested when he said he was going to get a condom. He went down on her. But this was poorly timeline in the article, which is being disputed. Because now we don't have an explicit consensual play by play. And this is where you took advantage of it saying that he went down on her without her consent. Then denying he even asked her to go down on him, to which she agreed to do so. And THEN finally admitting she was asked and did so. You still claim she didn't give consent to do so. But the reality is that she admitted to doing it after being asked which by definition is being consensual based upon the action. So Ansari has the right to think there is consent and not sexual assault as you claim there has been. ****

"No court is going to buy that being told "Woah, slow down, chill out" is reasonable grounds for someone to think they have permission to stick their tounge in someone else. Even if they were naked and kissing previously. "

And this is funny because; Not based on how that article was written they won't and even then it would still be hard to making that determinate conclusion.

Which would conflict with your conclusion.

Since you want to play games with Cold Rod Ill repeat it for him;

Did she express she was sexually assaulted or rape? Can you show us her claim?



delude
Member
Thu Jan 25 14:09:21
OH, also, good job ignoring the OP again that already answers what you've just said again.
delude
Member
Thu Jan 25 14:16:46
" was you are committing"

Supposed to be *what you are committing.
Cold Rod
Member
Thu Jan 25 14:55:12
Seb Rod didn't even read the article. LOL.

Seb Rod thinks because his mind is made up everyone else should be too.
Seb
Member
Fri Jan 26 16:52:28
Nim:

"Slow down doesn't mean stop, literally it does not."

I thought you were arguing earlier about nuance etc?

It certainly doesn't literally mean "go down on me".

"A simple no would do or "stop""

I think you will find she did put some simple words together: "Slow down".

And I remind you consent has a deal of jurisprudence behind it (not just in sexual encounters) - it does not mean "lack of non consent".

delude:

"Seb doesn't understand or know words. Check."

I do. I think you need to check what invent means again. When you "deduce" it, you at some point need to invoke a hypothesis - that something was said not documented.

That hypothesis is something that came from you.

Secondly, that breaks the clear criteria I'm using "that and only that which is in the report" - if there was things not in the article, then by definition the article isn't accurate.

Finally, you have not succesfully demonstrated that the *only* way the article could be interpreted is if your hypothesis is correct, so it is far fetched to argue that it is in there.

"That is the information that we don't particularly know, but more probable than not, the action was already taking place that lead up to it."

In your judgement, but your judgment is flawed.

Didn't you yourself said that you probably wouldn't take "slow down, chill out" as an invitation to perform oral sex on a woman?

"I have never discounted that at any moment she had the prerogative to change her mind."

So it remains a possibility, and is it not one that a reasonable person should have considered after hearing "slow down, chill out" prior to going down on someone?

"The problem that you are having is that you have concluded she didn't give consent to it"
Because, as I have said, contingent on events being as described in the article, at no point is it mentioned she does give explicit consent prior to saying "slow down, chill out", which I maintain no reasonable person could construe as an invitation to perform oral sex.

Whether or not it explictly rules out oral sex or only penetration with the penis is beside the point. In law, consent needs to have more to it than "this was not ruled out".

So the question would have to be "could a reasonable person believe they had consent", and I would say no. Not least because somebody changing their mind about the whole endeavour would very likely say something like "lets slow down" - so any reasonable person should not then believe themselves - whatever they were doing before - to have consent to escalate matters from kissing and fondling.

For Ansari to reasonably believe he had consent, something else would need to have happened. There is nothing in the account to suggest this.

This does not necessarily mean that there wasn't. There may well have been. We cannot know whether the account is 100% accurate or truthful. However, as you will note I have consistently explained that I am debating with people on this board whether the scenario *as described in the account* constitutes sexual assault.

One would have to assume that she gave some form of explicit consent, that would requite the creation of a hypothesised set of alternative events - i.e. invention. - which would then mean we are dealing with events outside of the account as described.

"That is the point, Seb. I said this in the OP"

You are perfectly aware - if you are able to understand words and read carefully - of the basis of my claims.

If you are now saying you are not arguing with me at all, but creating an entirely different set of circumstances - this seems a rather great waste of your own time, and perhaps you should read more carefully and "understand words" as you put it.

The only question I then have of you is if you were to lay aside your assumptions, and stick only the report as described (think of it as an identical hypothetical situation if you are unable to divorce the scenario to the reality of whatever actually transpired between the two of them) - does that scenario in your mind constitute sexual assault?

"Not based on how that article was written they won't"

I am not clear what you mean here. The literal meaning of what you said in response to my post is that you are agreeing the court won't buy that he has reasonable grounds to think he has consent.

Not understanding words, I fear you must be more clear for my poor addled mind.

"Did she express she was sexually assaulted or rape? Can you show us her claim?"

Bingo, that one has already been answered (twice I think). It's irrelevant. The legal criteria for rape does not require that the victim express the view they had been raped for rape to occur. If it did, then people in coma cannot legally be raped, for a start.

If you are arguing that because she doesn't explicitly state in the account that she was raped, again, that's not hugely relevant given the question I originally posed was whether the scenario as described constituted rape.

The lack of explicit acknowledgement in the account by her that she was raped doesn't change the facts as described - it might lead you to make additional assumptions about what transpired between them which may have been omitted. But I think we all know it is a given that an account may not be the objective truth.

The original dispute between myself and hood was on the basis of the events as described, not a hypothesis of what the actual events may have been.

This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp.

delude
Member
Fri Jan 26 18:14:15
"I do. I think you need to check what invent means again. When you "deduce" it, you at some point need to invoke a hypothesis - that something was said not documented."

No, still don't. Still don't know words. It's okay though, you've demonstrated quite a bit that you cannot determine what words mean. Especially since you failed to provide any evidence of coercion. But proceed with your delusions of grandeur that you know words.

"Secondly, that breaks the clear criteria I'm using "that and only that which is in the report" - if there was things not in the article, then by definition the article isn't accurate. "

That is the point once again. That is what is being disputed. That is what I've said, many have said, and other journalists have questioned. The questioned the intent of not only of "grace's" forthcoming, but the authors writing style. Seriously, it is like you ignore what people write and you sit there in your own little world and misinterpret what is said. It is like you have the poorest comprehension and deductive reasoning. Which leads to....

"Didn't you yourself said that you probably wouldn't take "slow down, chill out" as an invitation to perform oral sex on a woman?"

"I have never discounted that at any moment she had the prerogative to change her mind." -Me

You've quoted me and then dishonestly took what I've said out of context and attempted to use it against me. Where the true meaning behind it was that I would not disagree that she could have changed her mind at any point. It would be her prerogative to do so. Not that I necessarily said she did change her mind. See, that is you interjecting and putting words into peoples' mouths by taking it out of context. This makes you a dishonest person.

Shall we continue? Great, moving on...

"If you are now saying you are not arguing with me at all, but creating an entirely different set of circumstances - this seems a rather great waste of your own time, and perhaps you should read more carefully and "understand words" as you put it. "

I am not the one on record here that has misused words, misunderstood people, taken things out of context, and twisting other peoples' words to formulate a support structure for your own points.

Next...

"One would have to assume that she gave some form of explicit consent, that would requite the creation of a hypothesised set of alternative events - i.e. invention. - which would then mean we are dealing with events outside of the account as described. "

Let's think about this reasonably. A couple is naked or partially unclothed. And they are feeling upon one another, caressing, rubbing, stroking, fingering, various sexual activities that were most likely occurring. Would you not think that at some point in time that oral activity was also part of it. And when a condom is suggested which definitely in this case alludes to intercourse. You know, the pee pee into the vagina. Is where the concept to slow down was introduced. This leaves us open that it is most probable that they both returned to mutual engagement of the previous sexual activity, which coincidently involved oral sex. And at some point wanted that as well which involved him asking her and she agreed to do it.

At no point in argument have you pinpointed that she did not consent of him going down on her. At no point in the argument have you showed she did not consent to give him oral sex. At no point has Grace declared she was sexually assaulted or rape, which is something else you have not shown conclusively.

Which brings me to this final point; Do you think she was kissed without consent. We do not have any explicit consent of that now do we?

"The only question I then have of you is if you were to lay aside your assumptions, and stick only the report as described (think of it as an identical hypothetical situation if you are unable to divorce the scenario to the reality of whatever actually transpired between the two of them) - does that scenario in your mind constitute sexual assault? "

You see, this is why people accused you of not reading, nor comprehending, and that you outright disregard anything that anyone posts. In thread number 1 of this topic. I have maintained my opinion that this is not sexual assault. Now, with that ridiculous statement you've just made; which is more compelling it targets you more than me -- it appears that you are unable to even entertain the notion that consent is presumed. And also that you are incapable of entertaining that how the article is written, which CR stated and I agree that it was worded carefully to absolve her of any personal responsibility. Which in the course of about 660 some odd posts you refuse to accept that. Because your ego, emotions, and objectivity is lost. That is the truth.

"I am not clear what you mean here. The literal meaning of what you said in response to my post is that you are agreeing the court won't buy that he has reasonable grounds to think he has consent.

Not understanding words, I fear you must be more clear for my poor addled mind."

Not understanding words, but once again you've been called out by quite a few accusing of that, not me. Project much?

I will repeat again, the court, like you keep referring to, will not buy that this was sexual assault, criminally. They simply won't.

"Bingo, that one has already been answered (twice I think). It's irrelevant. The legal criteria for rape does not require that the victim express the view they had been raped for rape to occur. If it did, then people in coma cannot legally be raped, for a start. "

There is a far cry difference than those who are able to defend and those who cannot. These are two very separate encounters and you should feel very stupid for even trying to compare it. As to it being irrelevant...I guess this should be attached to what you said a while back that you refused to acknowledge now? OH!!! That's right let me paraphrase

"It's pointless for victims to go to the police." -Seb

Your words not mine.

"
If you are arguing that because she doesn't explicitly state in the account that she was raped, again, that's not hugely relevant given the question I originally posed was whether the scenario as described constituted rape."

You are expressing an opinion that you refuse to acknowledge as an opinion and stating conclusiveness on an article that is lacking evidence.

"The original dispute between myself and hood was on the basis of the events as described, not a hypothesis of what the actual events may have been. "

You may need to review your interactions again. But hood and I are practically saying the same thing. There you go again trying to...invent shit.

"This shouldn't be a hard concept to grasp. "

It shouldn't but we are 660 plus posts into this and you've been dishonest the whole time.



John Adams
Member
Fri Jan 26 18:17:00
I've skimmed through the posts and try to link them because of my curiosity of why am I seeing multiple 100 posts. But, I will say this just because of my job and background.

Seb, based upon the article alone. You're wrong about how it would be classified as sexual assault in court. It would not hold up, it doesn't provide clear of convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

If this was a civil matter and based upon preponderance of evidence, then it would more probable than not in favor of the victim.
delude
Member
Fri Jan 26 18:17:52
Ouch.
Cold Rod
Member
Fri Jan 26 18:21:27
And JA just slammed dunked the thread.
Cold Rod
Member
Fri Jan 26 18:22:28
Oh and Seb rod still refused to answer questions AND read the article of another perspective. Seb rob is dishonest.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 27 05:31:13
Adams
Seb knows it would not currently stand up in a criminal court. Though it probably would stand up in a civic case determining restitution.

My main thoughts on judicial reform to improve sexual assault convictions is that the prosecution use a lesser threshold for filing charges. Ask not if it will lead to a criminal conviction. Ask if it will lead to restitution.

This due to the difference in standards of proof in those two cases.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 27 05:32:38
Delude and CR
Both of you know Seb was very clear on women not bothering to go to the police in cases like that. It would not serve a purpose.

Very disingenious use of the term "slam dunk" you curveballed dimwits.
Delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 06:21:14
Yeah jergul, not serve a purpose....I addressed that too.

"Seb knows it would not currently stand up in a criminal court. Though it probably would stand up in a civic case determining restitution. "

Lol, seriously. Did you even read his posts during the course of this?
Cold Rod
Member
Sat Jan 27 08:27:20
"It would not serve a purpose. "

So jergul believes not reporting to the police if they believe they are victims of a crime.

Way to perpetuate and empower the metoo movement there jergul. Way to be a regressive. Way to be part of the problem and not the resolution.

I think "slam dunk" perfectly describes. Seb rod claims this is sexual assault and would hold up as a crime in court. And has been declaring and supporting that viewpoint for many posts now. JA told him he was a fucking moron. Someone who didn't appear to be regularly following the threads. Someone that has apparently attached themselves to the rest of those expressing how Seb rod is wrong. Someone who apparently, how truthful it is or not, everyone could be a fucking CEO, but has a reputation working in the legal system I think and has made posts regarding working in legislature.

Soooooo, I am more inclined to support his post. Than say Seb rod who has been shown to be dishonest.


jergul
large member
Sat Jan 27 09:37:42
Cold Rod and Delude
Curveball (get the reference to slamdunk and the Iraqi invasion?) dimwits.

You even made much ado about seb point out a reporting to the police would be pointless. Twice.

Functional memory peeps. Its important to retain information.

So no slamdunk here. Beyond exposing disingenuity or more probably issues with information sequencing.

Adams post is fine as so far as it goes. But it does not go very far. He made a strawman argument(I think it mostly inadvertent strawman, but still).

Also, I believe that if you think you have experienced a crime (observing one is fine, you do not have to be the victim), you should report it as a matter of principle.

The criminal justice system can and should sort out if their is enough evidence to proceed on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction, beyond the balance of probability for civic restitution, or if no action should be taken.
Cold Rod
Member
Sat Jan 27 09:49:35
"Curveball (get the reference to slamdunk and the Iraqi invasion?) dimwits."

Yeah, I see no relevancy. If you're trying to make a funny, it just sucked simple as that. And I knew what you were doing, it just...sucked.

"You even made much ado about seb point out a reporting to the police would be pointless. Twice.
Functional memory peeps. Its important to retain information.
So no slamdunk here. Beyond exposing disingenuity or more probably issues with information sequencing."

You put a bunch of words together and still managed not to make any sense and it seems you just like to hear yourself talk...

"Adams post is fine as so far as it goes. But it does not go very far. He made a strawman argument(I think it mostly inadvertent strawman, but still)."

lulzzzz.

"Also, I believe that if you think you have experienced a crime (observing one is fine, you do not have to be the victim), you should report it as a matter of principle."

So now you say report because it serves a purpose whereas before it would be pointless, because it did not serve one. Flippity floppy be consistent.

"The criminal justice system can and should sort out if their is enough evidence to proceed on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction, beyond the balance of probability for civic restitution, or if no action should be taken."

Right. So the CJS should do it's job if there is enough evidence to prosecute. Other than that, civil liability exists and is welcomed to be utilized. Yeah, I don't think anyone ever discounted that, jergulsebrod.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 27 09:59:41
CR
I think the CJS should charge people if it is likely the eventual outcome will be restitution. So simply use a lower standard of evidence when considering what cases should be pursued.

In the US it makes sense because plea-bargaining gives any charge leverage, so lower standards than beyond reasonable doubt can be legitimately considered when considering prosecution.

In more civilized jurisdictions, restitution is awarded by criminal trials even if evidence is only sufficient to prove something probably took place.

So it is obvious that the CJS should show more resolve in prosecuting marginal cases from a beyond reasonable doubt perspective.

Restitution is often as good an outcome as a guilty verdict. The assumption of innocence works pooorly in sexual assault cases (it assumes the victim is lying all other things being equal).

Restitution clarifies things. The person was most likely a victim and was awards this or that in compensation.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 11:06:32
John adams:

Think you have misunderstood my position.

If everything presented as a fact in the story were established in some way beyond doubt (it could not be of course), and no additional events took place, then I think had the scenario described is sexual assault.

The point of this rather academic position is that initially some seemed to be suggesting Ansaris behaviour was, if unsavoury, legal.

That's not the same thing as saying this, if taken to court, would result in conviction.
Cold Rod
Member
Sat Jan 27 11:35:04
LOL Seb rob moves the goal posts now.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 11:52:17
Delude:

You don't want to accept the fundamental point that I'm restricting myself to the article.

Saying other people have criticised the article as being badly written and therefore saying it may not reflect the truth is irrelevant to the discussion. I happily agree, the article may not reflect the truth.

What I was originally disputing is Hoods belief that "slow down and chill out" didn't indicate - in the context of her account - that consent could not be reasonably assumed. His original point was that there was that he felt key details indicating she wasn't up for it were omitted.

"When he kissed you, did you say you were uninterested? Did you pull away? When he started touching you, did you say no?"

I was saying that actually, simply saying "slow down, chill out" was enough.

You are saying the reverse: the key details that may be omitted are those where she explicitly consents or undertakes additional actions that lead Ansari to reasonably believe so.

You and Hood have diametrically opposite positions and you appear to have failed to notice that, despite how good at words you are.

You are arguing with a phantom because you haven't read and understood properly. Or are incapable of understanding conditional analysis.

"You've quoted me and then dishonestly took what I've said out of context"

No. Pay attention. I'm asking you: didn't you say that you wouldn't yourself on that situation taken that as permission to have sex with the woman? One of you did at least, I had thought it you.

"I am not the one on record here that has misused words"

Yes you have. Repeatedly!

"will repeat again, the court, like you keep referring to, will not buy that this was sexual assault, criminally. They simply won't. "

For someone putting so much emphasis on me failing to understand you, you should acknowledge when I say "the court will not accept he has reasonable grounds to think he has consent" and you say "no they won't", the grammatical meaning of your response is agreement. The thing they "won't" is "accept he has reasonable grounds". What you meant to say was "yes, the court will accept he has reasonable grounds".

I only bring such tedious points up since you are insisting I'm the one "not understand words" rather than you having a poor grasp of conditional analysis and imprecise use of language.

"There is a far cry difference than those who are able to defend and those who cannot"

Can you show me where in statute this difference in the criminal figure is defined?

"That's right let me paraphrase"

For someone screaming that your ambiguous, poorly constructed arguments are misunderstood, such a blatant distorted "paraphrasing" is a highly amusing.

Do you need me to explain the difference?

"Your words not mine"
Do you know what paraphrase means? It quite literally means you are not using my words at all.

"stating conclusiveness on an article that is lacking evidence."

I still can't really understand how you have failed to grasp that I'm saying "If this article, as described, is *taken* to be truth, this follows".

"But hood and I are practically saying the same thing."

Not really, but you are both such sloppy thinkers you are unable to identify the let differences.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 11:56:55
Delude:

Jergul clearly did read my posts. You didn't.

Let's take a key part in the original thread

http://www...hread=81868&time=1516547481111

Thu Jan 18 10:27:01
Delude:
"The point here is if her account is accurate, and if she wanted prosecution (which also depends on there being enough corroborating evidence - but lets assume her account is somehow objectively provable) - that could happen. These events, as described by a hypothetical omniscient narrator, would constitute sexual assault."

Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 11:57:36
Cold rod:

Nope. No goal posts moved. Been saying that from the beginning. See quote, timestamp, and link.
delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 12:46:27
"You don't want to accept the fundamental point that I'm restricting myself to the article.

Saying other people have criticised the article as being badly written and therefore saying it may not reflect the truth is irrelevant to the discussion. I happily agree, the article may not reflect the truth."

Yes, you've said that you have restricted yourself to the article, as well as taking your opinion as conclusion saying this is sexual assault whereas anyone that has disagreed with your opinion, that you at are presenting as fact and conclusion, you have had a fit about. This was said in the OP. Funny how this keeps coming back to my OP. Let us review:

((But for you to equate that I think his behavior is appropriate versus my objectivity of the actions presented by the author and not agreeing that it is sexual assault and you throwing a fit over and accusing everyone of deviant behaviors and calling them rapists... is hot rod level idiocy. In other words, don't get all bent out of shape if no one is agreeing with you. Say for two people. I guess that it counts for something. ))

My, my, it seems as though you mentioned this before.

And it isn't irrelevant to the discussion. You asked me the question to which I have answered. "What makes you think this is not sexual assault?" I am paraphrasing your question. My response eluded to how the article was written and the narration of the account portrayed, as well as Grace's response and texts she sent. Which emboldens my reservations as to why I consider based on what is known in the article my opinion because I think there are some critical information that was left out. Which conflicts with the sequencing only furthering my suspicions.

I find it ironic that you are seemingly agreeing that article may not reflect truth. Which was the stance of myself and others that based on what we know on the article and Grace said and has done causes us to object and look at it with more scrutiny. Yet, when that was conveyed you couldn't have it...

"What I was originally disputing is Hoods belief that "slow down and chill out" didn't indicate - in the context of her account - that consent could not be reasonably assumed. His original point was that there was that he felt key details indicating she wasn't up for it were omitted. "

Precisely the point that I was making. Again it likes you cannot formulate or comprehend the points that are being made even if the person saying it are different; For example, which Hood did use as an example to paint a sequence of events;

Viewers: Hood, myself, Seb.

The Scene: Already engaged in sensual/sexual activity including kissing, touching, caressing.

Ansari says: "I am going to get a condom."

Grace replies: "How about we slow down and chill."

Both briefly goes back to doing what they are doing and

COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTS (Omitted details)

And back from commercial break;

...Ansari performs oral sex on her.

**RECORD STOPS** Seb interjects! "THERE IS NO CONSENT SEXUAL ASSAULT, SEXUAL ASSAULT, HE RAPED HER, HE IS RAPING HER."

Seb is told to stfu.

The scene continues.

Ansaris ask of Grace; "will you suck me." She complies and proceeds to do so.

**RECORD STOPS** Seb interjects! "RAPE, RAPE, RAPE, no consent!"

Delude; "You know he just asked her to blow him right?"

Seb: "NO, RAPE, She didn't consent, that isn't consensual and she didn't consent to be have oral done on her!!! He just did it!!"

Delude/Hood; "Ya know with the account given and the article written it seems to be something omitted so rather it's hard to determined to support your accusations, but how things typically go in a setting, it seems there was some mutual engagements and consent. Though the article wouldn't have you think that."

Seb: She didn't consent to oral sex, he raped her!!

and repeat, and repeat, and repeat the arguments made by you that she didn't consent and was sexually assaulted and raped. You've declared she didn't give consent to blowjobs either which you have been shown wrong too. Only to futility attempt to say she only did it under coercion.(Something you have yet to shown proof of) And if you used coercions synonymously with her feeling pressured then I would agree and have agreed already.

But no, in Seb fashion you are not merely retracting a bit and saying trigger words such as "Well, well, my original point was..." Yet how it has evolved from you declaring conclusively this was sexual assault/rape only based on the article and others objecting and not agreeing with that assessment and you getting upset about it.

"I was saying that actually, simply saying "slow down, chill out" was enough.

You are saying the reverse: the key details that may be omitted are those where she explicitly consents or undertakes additional actions that lead Ansari to reasonably believe so.

You and Hood have diametrically opposite positions and you appear to have failed to notice that, despite how good at words you are.

You are arguing with a phantom because you haven't read and understood properly. Or are incapable of understanding conditional analysis. "

And both hood and I retorted that the slow down and chill remark was targeted to the proposal of intercourse. Despite how you feel that remark she made was the universal catch call to cease the activity. Yet it clearly shows she continued to engage in other sexual activities, by her own consent. And then you were mocked for thinking that one may object to sexual intercourse but still open to other activities. As you spent declaring that you live a vanilla sex lifestyle because it is practically impossibly for anyone unclothed or partially unclothed to engage in other sexual activity or foreplay before having sex. You clearly established by your own account that this is inconceivable. Which is laughable.

"No. Pay attention. I'm asking you: didn't you say that you wouldn't yourself on that situation taken that as permission to have sex with the woman? One of you did at least, I had thought it you. "

I may have said that given in that situation; I would have been more aware than say Ansari and probably would ceased actions. But, I am not him, but I also countered saying that I can understand how he may feel that even though sexual intercourse was taking off the table, it is also reasonable to think they could resume other sexual activities. Again this goes back to the premise that one may not want to have sex, but is willing to do other sexual activities. But you on the other hand find that inconceivable.

"For someone putting so much emphasis on me failing to understand you, you should acknowledge when I say "the court will not accept he has reasonable grounds to think he has consent" and you say "no they won't", the grammatical meaning of your response is agreement. The thing they "won't" is "accept he has reasonable grounds". What you meant to say was "yes, the court will accept he has reasonable grounds".

I only bring such tedious points up since you are insisting I'm the one "not understand words" rather than you having a poor grasp of conditional analysis and imprecise use of language. "

No, you clearly don't understand which is why the threads have continued and we are to this juncture. I am going by your declarations. And merely being critical of you for someone praising to be highly academic but yet perform elementary logical conclusions "only based from the article."

"Can you show me where in statute this difference in the criminal figure is defined? "

You're asking me to do something for you yet you have not answered mine?. You can fuck off...once you do that, then I will consider it. But to give a glimpse it seems you still can't understand why you said what you said was stupid. God help us.

"For someone screaming that your ambiguous, poorly constructed arguments are misunderstood, such a blatant distorted "paraphrasing" is a highly amusing. "

Like your poorly claimed that she was sexually assaulted/rape merely basing it over a poorly written article that lacks critical details only narrated by an author that clearly displays the victim lacking any personal responsibility upon this endeavor that you just recently, seemingly agree that it is the case?

"Do you know what paraphrase means? It quite literally means you are not using my words at all."

Do you not have any deduction skills at all that you couldn't connect it to sentiment?

"I still can't really understand how you have failed to grasp that I'm saying "If this article, as described, is *taken* to be truth, this follows". "

And I still can't really understand even if we go by your declaration to take this article as truth that it would still fail to be taken as such because of x, y, z. Which was the fucking point in the first place due to objectivity because it is lacking something.

Declare all you want Seb to make the basis of the article itself to be find as sexual assault/rape, it still wouldn't pass the test. It simply won't. John Adams even came in and express two scenarios. Criminally and Civilly and he is of the opinion that if we go with that Seb's original point was. 'Take the article as truth.' It wouldn't hold up criminally as it does not qualify, but more so civilly. Which now you are claiming that wasn't your point and he is wrong.

So to attach to what CR said, yeah, you're moving goal posts. And that is dishonest.

"Not really, but you are both such sloppy thinkers you are unable to identify the let differences. "

I don't have threads dedicated to me portraying that I don't understand words and context. Just sayin...





delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:01:56
"The point here is if her account is accurate, and if she wanted prosecution (which also depends on there being enough corroborating evidence - but lets assume her account is somehow objectively provable) - that could happen. These events, as described by a hypothetical omniscient narrator, would constitute sexual assault."

1) Jergul didn't read your posts.

2) And you're being dishonest with your intent and lacking context.

This shows that you are clearly making a case this is sexual assault/rape and it would be prosecutable in court criminally.

I am disagreeing with that.
Cold Rod
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:08:35
"Seb
Member
Tue Jan 23 18:18:01
Dukhat:

I disagree. In so far as the account is accurate, I think Ansari likely did commit a crime.

As I have explained several times. "

jergul
large member
Sat Jan 27 05:31:13
Adams
Seb knows it would not currently stand up in a criminal court. Though it probably would stand up in a civic case determining restitution.

This is Jergul agreeing he read Seb's posts...

also

"Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 11:57:36
Cold rod:

Nope. No goal posts moved. Been saying that from the beginning. See quote, timestamp, and link."


Goal posts moved. And Seb rod caught lying and behind dishonest.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:11:53
Delude:

Your OP is midway through the conversation that started several threads ago with you disputing my position which was abundently clear.

If, over time, you've convinced yourself we are talking about a fundamentally different scenario, the issue is that you have failed to understand me, not that I have failed to understand you.

It's also a barely literate rant.


"But for you to equate that I think his behavior is appropriate versus my objectivity of the actions presented by the author"

Sorry, I am "equating that [you] think his behavigour is appropriate with [whether or not] you think the account is objective"?

I've never said that. I've said assuming it is objective, is his behaviour legal?" I believe you eventually agreed with me that under those circumstances, it's not.

"you throwing a fit over"

Looks to me like you are the one throwing a fit.

" and accusing everyone of deviant behaviors"

I have not done so as nd I challenge you to find an example of that.

" and calling them rapists... "

As above.

" In other words, don't get all bent out of shape if no one is agreeing with you."

I'm not the one creating silly ranting threads because someone doesn't agree with them.

Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:13:52
Cold rod:

Do you know what "in so far as" means?

In a trial, the account would be challenged and couldn't be proven definitively accurate beyond all reasonable doubt.

No movement, just you being illiterate?
Cold Rod
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:14:34
Being dishonest*

So Seb rod has said:

"victims shouldn't go to the police."

"I am not saying this is a crime or courts would find it criminally, but they would, but no they would not."

"My original point was this, but now it means this."

"I am only talking academic standpoint as to why I think this means that and that means this, where I don't understand that this is that and that is this, you're wrong."

"Some say it was legal, but I am saying it isn't legal, but if we go by the article states it is a crime so therefore illegal, but it wouldn't hold up in court, but it would, though you said it wouldn't but I said it would and would not."

This sums up Seb Rod in the last hundreds of posts and threads.
delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:23:36
"Your OP is midway through the conversation that started several threads ago with you disputing my position which was abundently clear.

If, over time, you've convinced yourself we are talking about a fundamentally different scenario, the issue is that you have failed to understand me, not that I have failed to understand you.

It's also a barely literate rant. "

Like your jumping around from point to point only utilizing to veil your attempt to slowly retract from various points and seemingly agreeing with them now and then push forward again to change the meaning and context of what you originally said and then presenting them that you have not presented that way and you only meant it this way precisely?


"I have not done so as nd I challenge you to find an example of that. "

You and jergul bantering back in forth in the original and the 2nd thread of this saga inferring that we [those who are disagreeing] are enablers and support such behaviors. It was a few threads back, why do you think I explicitly made that statement?

"I'm not the one creating silly ranting threads because someone doesn't agree with them. "

Actually it was another thread that was started at the same time when I was continuing the other thread that ended. When I discovered that I conceded that thread should be the main one and posted the OP in there. You in fact dug this one up to finish out while in the previous thread failed to respond to any of those points. Yet repeated yourself and coincidentally everything you said is pretty much addressed in the previous thread and this OP of this thread.


Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:26:42
Delude:

"And you're being dishonest with your intent and lacking context."

Nope, I'm being absolutely honest and clear. It is you who is being dishonest in reusing to accept that you have misunderstood my position this entire time.

"This shows that you are clearly making a case this is sexual assault/rape and it would be prosecutable in court criminally."

No, it isn't. Omniscient narrators don't exist, or if they do, don't turn up in court when subpoenaed.

In any case I can point to numerous other points where I have said it wouldn't stand up in court, that Ansari would have his own version of events etc. I even pointed out that it would be so weak a case in practice that I wouldn't go to the police.

It is only if the version of events she presents could somehow be proven definitively true that it could be prosecuted.

And my original point was that Hood seemed to think it was ommitting key details where Ansari would have reason to think he had no consent. I.e. he and I were disagreeing about what could be inferred purely from the account.


"I am disagreeing with that."
In that case you are disagreeing with a position nobody here is taking.

If you must tilt at windmills, you should do it with more grace and elan.
delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:27:04
"This sums up Seb Rod in the last hundreds of posts and threads. "

Yes.
delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 13:33:23
"Nope, I'm being absolutely honest and clear. It is you who is being dishonest in reusing to accept that you have misunderstood my position this entire time.

No, it isn't. Omniscient narrators don't exist, or if they do, don't turn up in court when subpoenaed.

In any case I can point to numerous other points where I have said it wouldn't stand up in court, that Ansari would have his own version of events etc. I even pointed out that it would be so weak a case in practice that I wouldn't go to the police."

Yes, you've been back and forth on this. How it would go to court and stand up and how it wouldn't go to court. And then you declaring that she didn't give consent for oral sex on her and reciprocated onto him.

You have a history of going back and forth.

"It is only if the version of events she presents could somehow be proven definitively true that it could be prosecuted. "

But you have claimed it could be true and you've undoubtedly think this was a crime. So now even though you think this is a crime. "based on the article." and you don't think it is prosecutable, but still held the belief that it is?

"In that case you are disagreeing with a position nobody here is taking.

If you must tilt at windmills, you should do it with more grace and elan. "

Kinda like how you stated that others must be sexual deviants and enablers and support rapists and the rape culture because they didn't agree that Ansari raped or sexually assaulted Grace based upon a poorly written article?

Do what you must Seb...rod.
Seb
Member
Sat Jan 27 16:36:29
Delude:

"Yes, you've been back and forth on this."

No. As posted above:


http://www...hread=81868&time=1516547481111

Thu Jan 18 10:27:01
Delude:
"The point here is if her account is accurate, and if she wanted prosecution (which also depends on there being enough corroborating evidence - but lets assume her account is somehow objectively provable) - that could happen. These events, as described by a hypothetical omniscient narrator, would constitute sexual assault."

I've been 100% consistent. You just don't seem to understand using a scenario to understand the law, vs what can in practice be prosecuted.

For example, if I narrated to you a hypothetical scenario wherein someone is able to murder someone and leave insufficient evidence to prosecute: that person would still have committed the criminal figure of murder despite it not being possible to prove him guilty.

This is what we are talking about here.

"Kinda like how you stated that others must be sexual deviants and enablers and support rapists"

Find a quote from me saying that. I think you will find you misread the words or didn't understand their meaning.

You can call me Seb rod if it makes you feel better. It really shouldn't though. When people resort to that sort of thing is because they have no argument to fall back on. You might as well be admitting your mistake properly. Nobody is fooled.
delude
Member
Sat Jan 27 18:40:56
http://www...hread=81893&time=1516630041029

Dishonest Seb.
jergul
large member
Sat Jan 27 19:07:14
"When people resort to that sort of thing is because they have no argument to fall back on."

I actually enjoy responding on topic and spicing the response with colourful commentary.

Though I stick to initials or pet names unless properely vexed.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 28 03:36:08
Delude:

Dishonesty is refusing to accept my position has been abundantly clear all along.

Just accept you screwed up.
delude
Member
Sun Jan 28 05:28:38
Your position hasn't been clear all along. The link even supports how your stance and position evolved.

You claimed it is a crime and that it would be classified as sexual assault and rape based upon the article. You made an opinion and presented it as fact and maintained that conclusion.

Others -- objected held a different opinion, all agreed Ansari's behavior was not ideal, but maintained that his actions would not necessarily being rape or sexual assault due to some factors regarding the article.

You stated victims should not go to the police because it would not do any good. You claimed there would be zero chance or prosecution.

You've taken posters comments, twisted them, spliced them up, and refused to attached them to other posts in the thread that supports their position so that you could distort them to suit your point and then have the audacity to claim you've maintained your original position all along. You made have stated the position, but you by any means did not maintained it. Hence why we have 4 to 6 threads about this and each one of them has you on a different path.

And then you have the thread I just linked which displays you indicating the following;

That those who haven't agreed are part of the problem. Which I've inferred you've said and you've declined.

Where hood and I were arguing the same thing and hood even specifically clarified it. Which you claimed that he and I did not.

You were ask to give specifics by us on how you came to your opinion and then conclusiveness. Which you did not, other than another attempt to twist the subject. We can just call it moving the goal posts.


I've said this before and I will say it again. You're mixing preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt and that isn't going to hold up. And now I will attach what JA said, criminally definitely not, civilly, it is possible. But based on the article alone (which you keep harping on) honestly would not support it because of her continuation of consensual actions throughout the night. Along with a text that she herself implicates her expressing gratitude, and well wishes, but only after the fact that she felt uncomfortable and that he didn't pick up on it due to her lack of explicitly telling him no.

Seb, why don't you just accept that you're dishonest and you refuse to read and digest what the other person says.


jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 05:49:45
Delude
Criminal courts award damages in many jurisdictions in cases where lesser evidencaries thresholds are met.

It is different in the US I know. But there you have leverage. There is no need to have evidence beyond reasonable doubt. You just need enough evidence to make someone accept a plea-bargain.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 05:50:39
evidence*
delude
Member
Sun Jan 28 05:53:15
And in this case, there isn't enough to even offer a plea bargain. It was pointed out that with what is based on the article alone, the DA would not even consider taking this as a case.

If the person wanted to go sue then they have a better chance of getting restitution. But criminally, very low chance if at all.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 06:07:11
Delude
Thats, like your opinion, bro.

The article is enough to force a plea-bargain. You are assuming deniability or something. I will assume he would incriminate himself when interviewed by the police.

He penetrated her two places with tongue and fingers. Without consent. So sexual assault.
delude
Member
Sun Jan 28 07:14:18
"Delude
Thats, like your opinion, bro. "

Like totally dude, just like yours....*glances below*

"The article is enough to force a plea-bargain. You are assuming deniability or something. I will assume he would incriminate himself when interviewed by the police."

Like totally opinionated, totally tubular brah!

"He penetrated her two places with tongue and fingers. Without consent. So sexual assault."

Like dude, this is what is undetermined dude, like dude, you're being opinionated dude.

jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 07:42:30
The article determined he penetrated her two places with tongue and fingers without consent.

Construing consent is a construction.

Of course we can both have opinions on what may or may not be the subtext for the article. But as it stands, we have at least two cases of sexual assault (the article is unclear on how many times her mouth and throat were penetrated).
delude
Member
Sun Jan 28 07:46:15
"The article determined he penetrated her two places with tongue and fingers without consent. "

Did not.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 07:48:56
No consent was given in the article, dude.
delude
Member
Sun Jan 28 08:04:50
"Will you suck me."

She did.

Consent. This is been covered. I know you like to attempt to rehash over the glory days and all. But, you haven't shown where she did not give consent.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 28 08:05:42
Delude:

"You claimed it is a crime and that it would be classified as sexual assault and rape based upon the article"

If what you mean by that is: "if the article is taken to be true and we are discussing whether the scenario described in the article, then the scenario described is sexual assault"

Yes, that's consistently been my position.

Later you accuse me of "You've taken posters comments, twisted them, spliced them up, and refused to attached them to other posts in the thread that supports their position" - I don't think I have at all, but this is certainly what you appear to be doing.

I have repeatedly pointed out that in actuality, her account is unlikely to be undisputed and may not be complete, so it is very different to say "Ansari is a rapist" or "Ansari committed rape".

Hence there would be zero chance of prosecution. Recall you brought into the question about why she didn't go to the police. At the time I pointed out that given the issue I was addressing it wasn't really relevant. You insisted that it undermined the internal consistency of the account, so I addressed it.

The issue I originally had with Hood is that he didn't seem to recognise that the actions as described in her account were consistent with the legal requirements for sexual assault.

Do you genuinely not see the big distinction here?

I think you do but are too invested in your own error which you are trying to put on me.

Bluntly, why would I lie? It's right there in the opening thread. It's not really ambiguous.

"That those who haven't agreed are part of the problem. Which I've inferred you've said and you've declined."

When you post such vague, ambiguous posts with paragraphs such as this, you just can't accuse me of twisting your words. What problem. What have you inferred I said? Which bit or bits of this huge thread are you referring to?

Do as I do when quoting. Link to thread, and time stamp, provide quotes.

As for dishonesty, show a concrete example. I can show several examples of your dishonesty. For example you say I have said I have suggested others must be rapists. Yet you have not been able to provide one example of this.
An honest person would retract the claim.

"You're mixing preponderance of evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt and that isn't going to hold up"
No I'm not. We've been over this. See above. If I described a scenario from the perspective of an omniscient narrator of a man committing "the perfect murder" - i.e. one that left no evidence, that account would not be enough to convict; but the scenario itself would still describe a murder.

You seem incapable of believing there can be crimes which cannot be convicted through lack of evidence.

"
Seb, why don't you just accept that you're dishonest and you refuse to read and digest what the other person says. "

Because you have provided no evidence of this behaviour you accuse me of, while I have provided abundant evidence of you doing precisely that which you refuse to address.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 28 08:13:13
Delude:

"But, you haven't shown where she did not give consent."

1. You cannot show the absence of something. Ansari would have to show in such a hypothetical scenario that he had reasonable grounds to think he has consent. It appears penetration happened before he asked her to perform oral sex on her. So at the time, this couldn't lead him to think he had consent as it hadn't happened.
You might cite it to claim she only changed her mind later and consented at the time, but there are reasonable lines of attack to that argument which have been discussed before.

2. Again, what do you think "slow down, let's chill out" should reasonably be taken to mean? Hood and Nim both argue it can reasonably be taken to mean something like "don't get a condom, please go down on me instead". I don't think a court would reasonably buy that as a valid interpretation.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 08:21:09
Delude
Did I mention that as an example of sexual assault? Nope. De-escalation that ended continued penetration.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 28 09:22:32
jergul:

Though of course that might be if she felt compelled to - though appreciate that is not the argument you are making.

Certainly it can't be used to argue that he felt he had reasonable grounds for consent to anything prior.

It could be used to argue that any claim by her that she didn't consent to the previous sex act is bogus, but I think that would be hard if she said she felt threatened by the previous unconsensual act.

Which brings me back to my original point: the actions performed - if performed as described - may constitute sexual assault depending entirely on whether the person performed on interprets them as such or not.

So don't behave that way, and if you do behave that way, public shaming is not an unreasonable outcome.
Seb
Member
Sun Jan 28 09:24:17
Sorry, as we have the brigade of low reading comprehension pedants out in force - "don't behave" should be read as "one should not behave".
Cold Rod
Member
Sun Jan 28 10:40:15
So Seb rod is incapable of recognizing his own shortcomings. Then accuses others of the very same thing. And then when pointed out, he claims that wasn't his point where everyone sees it. So Seb versus multiple others and the multiple others are wrong.

LOL!

Cold Rod
Member
Sun Jan 28 10:40:50
"Sorry, as we have the brigade of low reading comprehension pedants out in force"

The irony in this statement alone.
jergul
large member
Sun Jan 28 13:43:45
Not to mention the goldy and bronzy of that statement.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 29 10:51:11
Cold rod;

I'm perfectly capable of recognising short comings, if you present evidence. As I have of yours (e.g. inability to understand "in so far as" is a conditional phrase)
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 29 10:51:39
Jergul:

Or even Alanic.
Cold Rod
Member
Mon Jan 29 12:15:19
Seb rod was shown a link of what was requested. He ignores it. Seb rod is dishonest.
Seb
Member
Mon Jan 29 12:50:40
Cold rod:

I was shown a link to an entire thread with no clear explanation of what exactly was supposed to be dishonest etc.

A link can provide evidence, but only if there context and argument. Without that it is meaningless.
Cold Rod
Member
Mon Jan 29 13:17:27
Dishonest Seb refuses to read sources as he criticize others.
Seb
Member
Tue Jan 30 01:24:54
There was nothing in no the link that showed dishonesty. Plenty that showed inability you and delude are unable to read
Cold Rod
Member
Tue Jan 30 05:06:21
This is dishonest seb insinuating; saying others perpetuate and condone such behaviors:

"You guys have a seriously warped idea about how this stuff works."

"You guys are your own worst enemy.

Rape culture is ridiculous concept - but it's perfectly normal to pressure women into sex. You need to start off to get them into it.

Explicit consent laws are ridiculous - but actually how can we know we have consent? She didn't object to the specific acts I wanted to do?

You guys - more so than those actually committing sexual assault - with your normalising heavy pressure and insisting that there's plausible deniability in clear cut cases - are basically ruining sex for the rest of us!

If you convince society that the only way to protect women from abusers is increasingly awkward and bureaucratic requirements because men lack the emotional intelligence to understand when it's ok to have sex and when not, you can't be surprised.

You should also recognise at that point, it's not the evil feminists imposing this; you are the guys creating this need, and its primary purpose is to protect you from accidentally raping people because you are stridently arguing it's impossible for you to know otherwise.

Save us from the overgrown man-children that can't handle the responsibility of being autonomous adults. "

Dishonest Seb claims he didn't infer that. Dishonest Seb didn't read the link. Dishonest Seb is Dishonest Seb.

More Dishonest Seb's insinuation and then denying he ever said it:

""Do you find that happens a lot to you? I think, generally then, you shouldn't be casting this whole episode as a description of a normal healthy sexual encounter. Do you do "the Claw" too?" "



Dishonest Seb is Dishonest Seb.

Delude responded: "But for you to equate that I think his behavior is appropriate versus my objectivity of the actions presented by the author and not agreeing that it is sexual assault and you throwing a fit over and accusing everyone of deviant behaviors and calling them rapists... is hot rod level idiocy. In other words, don't get all bent out of shape if no one is agreeing with you. Say for two people. I guess that it counts for something. "


Seb:"Find a quote from me saying that. I think you will find you misread the words or didn't understand their meaning."

Dishonest Seb claimed he didn't insinuate nor inferred that others condone the actions, or enablers, or have a undesirable perspective.

Dishonest Seb is Dishonest.
Cold Rod
Member
Tue Jan 30 05:09:55
Dishonest Seb will come back and say "You misunderstood me." or "I didn't say that." or "I was totally meaning something else than what you took what I said specifically about X but meant Y. Z was just what you got out of it because I am impervious."

You are a dishonest person Dishonest Seb.
Cold Rod
Member
Tue Jan 30 05:15:15
Another example of Dishonest Seb saying he did not insinuate others condoning;

"Hence I have zero sympathy for fucks like Ansari, and find it completely bizarre that you lot seem intent on trying to protect a supposedly grey space that nobody who isn't looking to push the margins ever finds themselves in."

Dishonest Seb is Dishonest.
Delude
Member
Tue Jan 30 07:14:40
Just wanna point out that all that that CR just post it came from the link that you requested. Gg seb rod.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share