(March 5, 2018 at 5:51 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 5, 2018 at 10:34 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Wyrd - So 21 years ago the victim was 21 years old.  That's considered to be an adult.  How many sexual encounters do you think the victim had in the next 14 years after becoming an adult?  If people won't speak up when they get screwed don't expect any sympathy from me decades after the incident.  There would have to be some official record to substantiate the complaint without me laughing about it...

---

This alone makes you one contemptible piece of shit. Unless you're just trolling, in that case you're a contemptible piece of shit.

May a rhinoceros fuck you and your sanctimonious attitude.

Something went all screwy with post 40, and I'm not sure WHO said what . . . Succubus was one . . . 

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt.  Let's say you aren't trolling.
The only other explanation for your stance is that you have absolutely no concept of the emotional toll that rape takes on a mature adult.  My roommate was raped in college. (1982)  The doctors at the hospital said that her physical damage was minimal - only minor bruising and a small tear.  This was a strong, smart girl with great friends and a great family.  She kept telling everyone she was fine but I was the one who kept running into her room when she woke up screaming - for months.  30 years after the rape, they caught the guy.  She was terrified to even go into the courtroom, she didn't want to be in the same room with him, even after 30 years, with a loving husband and 4 lovely children.  Her rapist made no threats - he had a gun, and laughed afterward, telling her that it wasn't loaded.  Threats weren't needed.  Being held down and violated was more than enough.

Now let's see, you're a 7-year-old who has no idea what is happening to you, except that it is terrifying and nauseating and embarrassing and painful and wrong.  And your abuser makes all sorts of threats.  You CAN'T tell anyone.  Ever.  And the child is often made to think it's their fault, and THEY will go to jail if they tell.

Now how, exactly, do "sexual encounters in the next 14 years" figure into this at all?  You don't think that sexual encounters will . . . what, make everything ok?  Are you so ignorant about this sort of trauma - or utterly lacking in empathy - that you think that rape isn't a big deal and that people just move on?  Are you serious?  Or are you a rapist?

(March 6, 2018 at 1:01 am)drfuzzy Wrote: Let's give you the benefit of the doubt.  Let's say you aren't trolling.

You really think that's a likely option with Wyrd?

---

(March 5, 2018 at 11:05 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: A priest's life is a wrong one. You don't get to live like a neutered when you are born whole.

Neutered people are almost always born whole. You know that, right?

(March 6, 2018 at 1:01 am)drfuzzy Wrote:

---

(March 5, 2018 at 5:51 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: May a rhinoceros fuck you and your sanctimonious attitude.

---

Quote:Something went all screwy with post 40, and I'm not sure WHO said what . . . Succubus was one . . . 

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt.  Let's say you aren't trolling.
The only other explanation for your stance is that you have absolutely no concept of the emotional toll that rape takes on a mature adult.  My roommate was raped in college. (1982)  The doctors at the hospital said that her physical damage was minimal - only minor bruising and a small tear.  This was a strong, smart girl with great friends and a great family.  She kept telling everyone she was fine but I was the one who kept running into her room when she woke up screaming - for months.  30 years after the rape, they caught the guy.  She was terrified to even go into the courtroom, she didn't want to be in the same room with him, even after 30 years, with a loving husband and 4 lovely children.  Her rapist made no threats - he had a gun, and laughed afterward, telling her that it wasn't loaded.  Threats weren't needed.  Being held down and violated was more than enough.

Now let's see, you're a 7-year-old who has no idea what is happening to you, except that it is terrifying and nauseating and embarrassing and painful and wrong.  And your abuser makes all sorts of threats.  You CAN'T tell anyone.  Ever.  And the child is often made to think it's their fault, and THEY will go to jail if they tell.

Now how, exactly, do "sexual encounters in the next 14 years" figure into this at all?  You don't think that sexual encounters will . . . what, make everything ok?  Are you so ignorant about this sort of trauma - or utterly lacking in empathy - that you think that rape isn't a big deal and that people just move on?  Are you serious?  Or are you a rapist?

At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.  

The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them.  In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day.  I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury.  And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.

You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it.  Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime.  That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.  

Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout.  She didn't even want to go to court.  But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant.  If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor.  But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent.  She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems. 

So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence.  The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence.  They just want the money.

 Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?

Contemptible piece of shit it is then.

(March 6, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Succubus Wrote: Contemptible piece of shit it is then.

Yep, you would make a good leader of a lynch mob since the idea of presumption of innocence can't penetrate your very tiny brain.

(March 6, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 6, 2018 at 1:01 am)drfuzzy Wrote: [hide]

At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.  

The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them.  In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day.  I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury.  And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.

You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it.  Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime.  That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.  

Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout.  She didn't even want to go to court.  But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant.  If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor.  But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent.  She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems. 

So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence.  The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence.  They just want the money.

 Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?

So you apparently don't believe that millions of children have actually BEEN raped by priests and suffer the after-effects for years?  Because that was my basic point.  Sure, there are probably some scammers in the bunch, but I personally believe the vast majority of them.  Not only that, but when there is one, there are usually dozens, and they corroborate each other's stories - - the few that find the courage to speak up as adults.  And an army of psychologists and detectives have usually analyzed their stories and reactions before they step into a court.  In child molestation cases that I have personally witnessed, the victim and the families did not seem to want money from the diocese.  They wanted the priest de-frocked.  I thought that they were very forgiving.  Put a rapist in front of me and I'm voting for death by very, very, very, very slow torture on national TV.  

If I was on a jury, and saw a "victim" who did not present as a victim, whose story was inconsistent, I would probably conclude they were faking it.  It would not be an instance for mocking and laughter, however.

Your utter lack of empathy and apparent absolute incapability to recognize that there are many instances of child abuse by priests and preachers is interesting.

(March 6, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 6, 2018 at 1:01 am)drfuzzy Wrote: [hide]

At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.  

The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them.  In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day.  I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury.  And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.

You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it.  Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime.  That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.  

Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout.  She didn't even want to go to court.  But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant.  If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor.  But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent.  She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems. 

So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence.  The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence.  They just want the money.

 Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?

You’re a super gross person.  Do humanity a favor and just...stay in your house until you die of old age.

---

@Fuzzy

WOG also believes the women Lawrence Nassar abused are lying. Apparently, incidences of ‘rape’ and ‘sexual abuse’ in America are really just one massive, interconnected conspiracy of money-hungry bitches who have it out for the innocent, unsuspecting Man. Woman-hater much? 😏

(March 6, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(March 6, 2018 at 1:01 am)drfuzzy Wrote: [hide]

At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.  

The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them.  In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day.  I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury.  And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.

You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it.  Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime.  That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.  

Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout.  She didn't even want to go to court.  But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant.  If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor.  But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent.  She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems. 

So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence.  The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence.  They just want the money.

 Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?

I'd have to actually sit on said jury and make my own call. I personally think that you are rubbing some of the corners off the jurisprudence system and are way off base with it, but whatever. You just do you.

(March 6, 2018 at 11:38 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

---

(March 6, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: At first glance you appear to present a good argument but analysis shows that it's full of holes.  

The discussion was about people who wait decades before whining that some pervert priest raped them.  In a lot of such instances the alleged perp is dead and now the victims just want a big pay day.  I said in such instances I would laugh the case out of court if I was on the jury.  And I would because there is no credible evidence that the victim can support the allegation.

You cleverly introduced the instance where a real crime victim was raped and filed a crime report and the cops collected the evidence and stored it.  Then as time passed a guy was snagged for some crime and his DNA was ran against the cold cases and he was busted for his crime.  That is completely different from the typical case involving a perp priest.  

Now in the case you cited the victim didn't sue for a big payout.  She didn't even want to go to court.  But she was caught up in the system because years ago she filed a legitimate compliant.  If she was a minor at the time of the incident she probably wouldn't even be required to testify in great detail as an adult because the DNA evidence and police report would probably be enough to get a conviction since she couldn't consent to sex as a minor.  But you said she was in college so she was probably over the age of consent.  She could have ignored the case if she had wanted to but that might have caused her some family problems. 

So the difference is that one person is a verified crime victim who has supporting evidence.  The other person is a self-alleged victim whose only evidence is other people's claims against the alleged perp and they also don't have any credible evidence.  They just want the money.

 Now if you were the alleged perp in such a case would you rather have someone like me on your jury or a person who is easily swayed by hysteria because someone is making a claim without any supporting evidence against you?

---

Quote:You’re a super gross person.  Do humanity a favor and just...stay in your house until you die of old age.

---

@Fuzzy

WOG also believes the women Lawrence Nassar abused are lying.  Apparently, incidences of ‘rape’ and ‘sexual abuse’ in America are really just one massive, interconnected conspiracy of money-hungry bitches who have it out for the innocent, unsuspecting Man.  Woman-hater much?  😏

So there you are walking down the street and you get robbed.  You don't mention it for the next 35 years and then you want to go public and say that Friar Tuck took your stuff.  So all of the nitwits get worked up into a hysterical mob and go lynch Friar Tuck.  

Here's the bottom line for all of you nitwits =

If someone commits a crime against you say something when it happens so that the thug cops can gather the evidence and the DA can prosecute the perp.  If you sit on your ass for 35 years and then start whining I have zero sympathy for your ass.  Got that?

(March 6, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Succubus Wrote: Contemptible piece of shit it is then.

You're talking to a Hitler fanboi here Succubus.