(October 17, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Losty Wrote: The killing or raping or whatever is still unlawful even if there's something that prevents charges from being brought up. I someone raped another person 50 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because they're no longer living their actions were still unlawful. The same if someone raped someone 5 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because the SoL has passed, the rape itself was still unlawful.

That's the problem though, if something is "unlawful", it's against the law. If the law has a statue of limitations, then the law doesn't apply to any events that happened prior to the period defined by the statute, so whilst at the time of the rape it was against the law, 5 years later it is not.

Effectively what the statute of limitations is saying is "rape is against the law unless the rape occurs 5 years or more before it is reported".

The argument Drich seems to be making (however poorly worded I think it is), is that rapes that occurred 5 years before they are reported aren't rapes in the sense that they aren't crimes, because they aren't unlawful anymore. I think his argument in that respect is correct, and it's effectively legal to rape someone provided the victim doesn't report it within 5 years, because after that time the person can't be charged with it.

That doesn't mean the rape (i.e. the actual non-consensual sex) didn't happen of course.

But when is that ever the case? Most of the time if there is outstanding evidence or a specific reason for not reporting within the SoL you can get around it and still have the case tried so I don't agree that it's not unlawful so much as that you now are much less likely to get prosecuted. I also don't agree that Drich deserves the benefit of the doubt that you're giving him. I think his jerk off smilies in response to someone sharing their rape story and why they didn't report speak for themselves.

(October 17, 2016 at 3:52 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Shell B Wrote: Could it be that because you (apparently) lack compassion, you just can't recognize it in other people?

No, this is not an inability to identify compassion as "compassion" was option "b". I see what you label compassion and further identified with pity. which was the reason for the post. i want to know what makes what i see as pity being labeled as compassion.

If their isn't a difference, then I have explained why I feel compassion so long after the attack can be counter productive.

Again everything in it's place. There is a time for pity and compassion but to decades after the fact UNLESS The individual intended on being a perpetual victim.

What I've said several times now is I have indeed made allowances for someone who intends to be a victim all their life. However the focus of my efforts is to make that person aware that they do NOT have to subscriber to perpetual victim hood even though all polite society is willing to offer is misplaced pity.

Again simply providing an alternative. So when someone like CL provides a contrasting example It makes me wonder why she would offer "pity" so long after the attack or if she saw compassion in a different way.

Yes, it was a long time ago that Mermaid claimed to have been raped. But some scars run so deep that they stay with the person forever. The death of a child is one of them. My husband's cousin died in a motorcycle accident a while back ago. His dad (husband's uncle) was talking to us about it and he said that even though it happened 7 years ago, it still hurts like it was yesterday. I imagine a rape to be so traumatizing that it would leave similar life long scars.

To still feel hurt and effected by a traumatic experience from years before does not mean the person is playing the victim, or trying to stay a victim. Nor does it mean it is counterproductive of us to feel for them in regards to what they went through and are still effected by. I know you probably feel like I'm "analyzing" you too much and it's probably super annoying, but I think this may be part of your cold headedness and lack of ability to really connect with other people.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Vic Wrote: This is what you call empathy. It's a basic human skill that allows for societies to function. It would be pity if it involved a low opinion of the person you're being empathetic towards.

actually no.. Pity and compassion are synonymous.

The two words are literally used to define each other.

Search Results
pit·y
ˈpidē/
noun
noun: pity
1.
the feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others.

com·pas·sion
kəmˈpaSHən/
noun
noun: compassion; plural noun: compassions
sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

You guys are arrogant if you think I don't know the meaning of the words. I simply asked CL to define those words as I do not understand her use of compassion so removed from the act. She wasn't responsible for it in any way shape or form nor did her words as far as I could determine show anything but pity.. So then inlight of what we (Cl and I) were discussion I was asking if there was some other reason besides and exhibition of pity did she intend when she offer her words... Then I asked why?

Why? because I see that as an offensive act. In other cultures say Korean, pitying someone in a similar situation could be construed as an offensive act. So I was wondering if she even knew why she said what she said or was it just a cultural reaction.

I would disagree that they are synonymous.  To have pity is to feel sorrow, but to have compassion is to be moved to do something about it.  When I walk by a homeless person and think "man, that poor guy" but I keep walking and go about my day, I pity that man.  If I stop and give him money or offer him food, I'm showing compassion out of my pity.  They are similar but compassion goes a step further.  

The key word in your definitions that you are overlooking is the word "concern".  If I pity someone, I'm not concerned.  If I'm compassionate, I have a concern for their well being.

(October 17, 2016 at 4:05 pm)Drich Wrote: You guys are arrogant if you think I don't know the meaning of the words. I simply asked CL to define those words as I do not understand her use of compassion so removed from the act. She wasn't responsible for it in any way shape or form nor did her words as far as I could determine show anything but pity.. So then inlight of what we (Cl and I) were discussion I was asking if there was some other reason besides and exhibition of pity did she intend when she offer her words... Then I asked why?

Why? because I see that as an offensive act. In other cultures say Korean, pitying someone in a similar situation could be construed as an offensive act. So I was wondering if she even knew why she said what she said or was it just a cultural reaction.

Did I clarify enough?

(October 17, 2016 at 1:09 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Sounds like there are two definitions of the word "rape" being used here.

There's "rape" the crime, and "rape" the action.

So yes, whilst a person can't be convicted of a rape (crime) 5 years after it happened, that doesn't change the fact that the person raped (action) the victim.

Drich you appear to be ignoring the colloquial use of terms in favor of being overbearingly technical. For example, the phrase "he got away with murder" is a well known expression, even though by your argument if you don't get convicted of murder you aren't technically a murderer.

In short, I get where you are coming from but I don't think you're argument really applies to the underlying theme here. The event (rape, sexual assault, non-consensual sex, whatever you want to call it) still happened even if nobody got convicted for it.

... But if dude did murder someone or rather was accused of murder and by trial was found innocent Dude (OJ for example) by defination literally is not a murder.. He is a murder by the court of public opinion, but the long and short of it legally he is not.

This may seem like i am picking nits, but I'm not.. The problem does not lie with what I've said but the popular understanding of the words.

People want Rape to be all instances of forced sex. I get that. Problem is.. It's not. Rape is only illegal sexual activity that is prosecuitable.

That is the very reason we even have this thread. The OP wants rape to be what he feels the defination to be, so he is astonished that their is a SOL.. I get that..

The reality is that it is not. Rape is a fleeding crime. as per the SOL.

Which means Victims MUST Act Sooner Rather Than Later.

You have to look at Crime in accordance to how the law looks at crime/right and wrong or we will be consumed by a screwed up sense of justice.

If you want to pretend that rape does not have a SOL and once a a woman declares a man a rapist for something that happened 20+ years ago, but the law will not allow prosecution, then what stop people for seeking the kind of mob justice the rioters in Charlotte sought?

I get what people are saying, but to over define rape/to go beyond what the legal definition allows does the victim a disservice.

(October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:17 pm)Shell B Wrote: It's not even a colloquial term, Tibs. Rape is rape is rape.

I know, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding definitions and his argument. If you aren't found guilty of committing a crime, or for some reason cannot be convicted for a crime, was it still a crime?

One definition of "murder" is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So if the killing wasn't unlawful (because there was some statue of limitations preventing a conviction), is it still murder, or is it just a "killing".

The argument is an interesting one, though it's entirely based in semantics.

It's not just semantics. What separates a word like murder from killing is the prohibition and prosecution. Again If OJ Killed His wife and her BF and was release by the legal system then no matter what he by all aspects of the law is not a murderer.

As it is the prosecution of a killer that makes one a murderer. If however in the court of pop culture we decide to call him a murder despite his legal status, that is the matter of semantics.

It is to the legal definition that we are bound first, then if we wish to take liberties with out vocab then that is on us.

Quote:My argument is that "rape" has (at least) two meanings, one that relates to the legal situation, and one that is colloquial. If you have non-consensual sex with someone, you have raped them in a sense that most people understand (colloquially), even if you aren't viewed as having raped the person under the law because the rape wasn't reported in time (legally).

The same is true here Forced sex and rape are not the same. Rape is a criminal act while forced sex is not. the SOL being the primary determining factor.

And again here if people want to call others rapists even though they were found innocent or can not legally be prosecuted for whatever reason, then this too is a matter of semantics.

(October 17, 2016 at 1:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 12:38 pm)Drich Wrote: ....Truly I do not understand the statement.. What do you have to be sorry for?

To me this is disingenuous.. You can't be sorry and mean it as you had nothing to do with the circumstances.(you just found out about it) You cant apologize for society or the community as you are not in a position to speak for it...

To me this is pity.

You simply feel bad this happened and feel a need to say something..

If this is the case, and you are unsure of the time line then isn't it possible that your offer of pity could do more harm than good?

Or is this just an empty gesture.. Kind like passing a co worker in the hall and asking 'how you doing?' but do not care in any way shape or form how one is doing.. it's just what you say...

This is just a matter of semantics. In the English language, we say "I'm sorry" to someone who has suffered something, not as an apology on our behalf, but as an expression of sympathy.  

In my first language, Portuguese, we say "sinto muito" in the same context. Which literally means "I feel a lot". But it's the equivalence of saying "I'm sorry" in English. 


https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...to%20muito 

It's an expression of sympathy. 

Again, Drich, if you seek to reach anyone here for any sort of productive discussion, you need to do so with better people skills. Perhaps being told "I'm sorry" by someone when one of your loved ones dies, means nothing to you personally. But not everyone is like you. I'd say most people aren't, which is why I described you as unique. If you want to get anything out of discussions with people, you'd do better to try to connect with them at least on a human level.

I guess it depends on how you measure sucess.

My goal is not to win a friend but to make people think and question what they know or at least think they know. My goal is not to get to disney, it is the road trip, the exchange of ideas and the thought/thinking process that goes behind it all.

It is obvious that I see things differently. whether one is compelled or repulsed it is the thinking involved that is my primary motivation.

Just look at all the thinking you've done responding to me in this thread. We have exchanged more real ideas/thought in this one thread than all the time we've been on this site together. and agree with me or not, you at least understand and know a little more than what you did about me and how I see God, than you did before.. and as a natural result of our inner action I know more about you.

I have said more to people I don't generally get to speak to in this particular thread than I have at any other time.

Lots of good thoughts being exchanged and lots of people seeing things alittle different..

(October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Losty Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:39 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I know, but I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding definitions and his argument. If you aren't found guilty of committing a crime, or for some reason cannot be convicted for a crime, was it still a crime?

One definition of "murder" is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So if the killing wasn't unlawful (because there was some statue of limitations preventing a conviction), is it still murder, or is it just a "killing".

The argument is an interesting one, though it's entirely based in semantics.

My argument is that "rape" has (at least) two meanings, one that relates to the legal situation, and one that is colloquial. If you have non-consensual sex with someone, you have raped them in a sense that most people understand (colloquially), even if you aren't viewed as having raped the person under the law because the rape wasn't reported in time (legally).

The killing or raping or whatever is still unlawful even if there's something that prevents charges from being brought up. I someone raped another person 50 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because they're no longer living their actions were still unlawful. The same if someone raped someone 5 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because the SoL has passed, the rape itself was still unlawful.

But here's the thing... It is only Unlawful for 5 years. after which time there is no measurable difference between lawful sex and unlawful sexual activity.

(October 17, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Losty Wrote: The killing or raping or whatever is still unlawful even if there's something that prevents charges from being brought up. I someone raped another person 50 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because they're no longer living their actions were still unlawful. The same if someone raped someone 5 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because the SoL has passed, the rape itself was still unlawful.

That's the problem though, if something is "unlawful", it's against the law. If the law has a statue of limitations, then the law doesn't apply to any events that happened prior to the period defined by the statute, so whilst at the time of the rape it was against the law, 5 years later it is not.

Effectively what the statute of limitations is saying is "rape is against the law unless the rape occurs 5 years or more before it is reported".

The argument Drich seems to be making (however poorly worded I think it is), is that rapes that occurred 5 years before they are reported aren't rapes in the sense that they aren't crimes, because they aren't unlawful anymore. I think his argument in that respect is correct, and it's effectively legal to rape someone provided the victim doesn't report it within 5 years, because after that time the person can't be charged with it.

That doesn't mean the rape (i.e. the actual non-consensual sex) didn't happen of course.

You ever see those guys who can sculpt wicked good with a chain saw?? I think if you facebook or youtube Chainsaw david you can see a guy do a rendition of Michelangelo's david with a series of chainsaws that would be fit to place on display in an art gallery... But then when you hold it up to what Michelangelo actual David, the polish and awesomeness of the chain saw version goes away, and you can quickly see all the flaws and the unfinished work...

I think this is what happened here but in reverse.

(October 17, 2016 at 1:46 pm)Losty Wrote: The killing or raping or whatever is still unlawful even if there's something that prevents charges from being brought up. I someone raped another person 50 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because they're no longer living their actions were still unlawful. The same if someone raped someone 5 years ago and cannot be brought up on charges because the SoL has passed, the rape itself was still unlawful.

Interesting. The essence of an action being a "rape" is its being non-consensual. It's being a crime is secondary. The core idea is forced or coerced sex.

With murder, consent doesn't enter into it. There might not even be a consensual exception in the case of assisted suicide. It's being unlawful is at the core of the definition, since there are state sanctioned killings to which the word does not apply.

In the case of statutory limitations, an unlawful killing would still meet the definitional requirement of having been a murder if the killing was unlawful at the time it took place. Rules of prosecution wouldn't change that.