How the fuck is there a statute of limitations for rape in New York?

[Shell B]

Drich, the problem with the decent points you raise about evidence is that you dilute them with assertions you can't back up, such as that only 1% of women have been raped. Well, you said it in a weird fucking way, so I'm not sure if you were saying 1% of women can win an argument with a rape story or 1% of women have been raped. If the former, that's not quantifiable. If the latter, it's just untrue.

You're correct that it's hard to prove rape. You're correct that consent is the only difference between mutual intercourse and rape. You're even correct that not everyone who says they were raped was raped. Saying you were raped is easier for some people than is admitting you had sex with someone and regret it. Furthermore, I don't fault you for being crass. I'm probably more crass than not myself. For me, the problem is that you don't even try to present facts with evidence. You just present your "facts" with enough rancor to evoke an emotional response in your opposition, which I think you delude yourself into thinking makes your argument successful. Sure, a lot of people argue from emotion with you, but that doesn't make *some of their points any less valid. Maybe, and this is a big maybe, if you toned it down a little bit, these people wouldn't get so "dark" with you, as you put it.

[Drich]

I know a sociopath in real life. Trust me, they are not worth knowing.

IDK if a sociopath could live for something other than self, for maybe a higher purpose that wouldn't be so bad... I think it is the atheist sociopath that become the Sherlock Holmes a-holes

[FatAndFaithless]

I know a sociopath in real life. Trust me, they are not worth knowing.

IDK if a sociopath could live for something other than self, for maybe a higher purpose that wouldn't be so bad... I think it is the atheist sociopath that become the Sherlock Holmes a-holes

I'd take Sherlock Holmes over you any day, Drich. Is that a deal that's on the table?

[Shell B]

I know a sociopath in real life. Trust me, they are not worth knowing.

IDK if a sociopath could live for something other than self, for maybe a higher purpose that wouldn't be so bad... I think it is the atheist sociopath that become the Sherlock Holmes a-holes

See, that doesn't even make sense. I'm not sure how anyone can take shit you say personally.

[Faith No More]

Where have I justified any of what I said here with book chapter and verse? this isn't a bible study. this is off topic stuff/news current events.

I was referring to your general tenure here, not this thread explicitly, but are you saying that the self-appointed absolute authority on biblical Christianity is trying to justify something without looking to see what the bible says?  Jesus haz a sad now.

I used logic, the rule of law concerning the statutes of limitations, quotations from other members, and my collective experiences to construct my argument.

I didn't actually read what you've written beyond the sixth page(I can only stomach so much stupidity), but drawing from your past here and your inability analyze your own statements, I don't really feel like I'm going out on a limb to say that you didn't use most, if any, of those things, least of all logic.

what I omited is the BS and the pity party that seems to be the customary offering to a victim. That crap is poison to anyone who want to be more than the sum total of the bad that has happened to them. So I offered it to them if they wanted to be a perceptual victim. I gave them an option.

You say "pity party;" Rational human beings say, "show compassion and empathy."

Who are you to say that is wrong?

Someone who is well acquainted with you.

[Catholic_Lady]

Shell, I like your reasonable and down to earth approach to this. I can completely understand Judi getting super emotional on the forum because it is understandably a sensitive topic for her, and I feel for her very much. I don't blame her. But the rest of the sh*t slinging and name calling towards Drich from other members seem counter productive to a legitimate discussion on this. I like that you keep your cool.

[Faith No More]

Shell, I like your reasonable and down to earth approach to this. I can completely understand Judi getting super emotional on the forum because it is understandably a sensitive topic for her, and I feel for her very much. I don't blame her. But the rest of the sh*t slinging and name calling towards Drich from other members seem counter productive to a legitimate discussion on this. I like that you keep your cool.

Maybe you just haven't talked with him enough, but there is no such thing as a "legitimate discussion" once Drich gets involved.

[Drich]

Drich, the problem with the decent points you raise about evidence is that you dilute them with assertions you can't back up, such as that only 1% of women have been raped. Well, you said it in a weird fucking way, so I'm not sure if you were saying 1% of women can win an argument with a rape story or 1% of women have been raped. If the former, that's not quantifiable. If the latter, it's just untrue.

Where did I say 1% of women were ever raped?

I said there was maybe 1% of women who could at a moment's notice could march out a tale of rape in a passing conversation to proove a point but yet could not bring herself to report it to the police to save her younger sister from being raped by her father as she was... I was thinking more like .001% who could all but brag on one end yet makes excuses about why she still won't press charges.

You're correct that it's hard to prove rape. You're correct that consent is the only difference between mutual intercourse and rape. You're even correct that not everyone who says they were raped was raped. Saying you were raped is easier for some people than is admitting you had sex with someone and regret it.

Furthermore, I don't fault you for being crass. I'm probably more crass than not myself. For me, the problem is that you don't even try to present facts with evidence.

All you need do is ask if my presentation of said evidence is to subbtal.

You just present your "facts" with enough rancor to evoke an emotional response in your opposition, which I think you delude yourself into thinking makes your argument successful.

There is no delusion here. rarely is there a time i can not back up a fact with three points of reference. I don't lead with source material because it puts 'emotional people' off. they need to be able to say their piece to me as i am a nobody idiot that can argue with. But if you notice once engaged when the opposition shows doubt I re-enforce and support. When you misunderstand I clarify. if you point blank ask for proof I cite: for example Rape is the most unreported crime. "the silent shame" therefore the number of women who can bring themselves to report a crime that will keep another from being brutalized as they were, but could share it with strangers, would indeed be a small very small percentage of the rape community. as this report says that 29% of those who anomalously polled who had been raped and did not report it could not even share it with friends or family.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...61636.html

Sure, a lot of people argue from emotion with you, but that doesn't make *some of their points any less valid. Maybe, and this is a big maybe, if you toned it down a little bit, these people wouldn't get so "dark" with you, as you put it.

That why I bring a sun flower to the fight.

[GUBU]

The only crime that has no  statute is murder. The reason there are limits on all other crimes isn't to protect the accused but to protect society including the innocent that might might get accused from an over zealous government. Innocent people do end up accused and wrongly convicted

Doesn't wash for me. Ireland has no statutes of limitation on indictable crimes (which include all sexually based crimes) yet the justice system isn't swamped with criminal cases pursued by overzealous prosecutors.

[GrandizerII]

what I omited is the BS and the pity party that seems to be the customary offering to a victim. That crap is poison to anyone who want to be more than the sum total of the bad that has happened to them. So I offered it to them if they wanted to be a perceptual victim. I gave them an option.

You say "pity party;" Rational human beings say, "show compassion and empathy."

I don't know if rational is the exact right word here, but regardless, I think this is the crux of the issue here with Drich. It seems like he has disdain for showing compassion and empathy and so will look down on it as a pity party. It's part of what makes him quite despised by a number of people here.

Not that I'm the king of empathy or anything like that. I myself have failed to show empathy at times when needed, but I never once took pleasure in not doing so. And never did I look down on others showing empathy as throwing a pity party. What an ugly thing to say in this context.