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

[Losty]

So, what is non-consensual sex if it's not rape?

In short non consensual sex in non prosecutible 'rape.' (for the lack of a better term.) Rape is a term that describes a criminal act. if the government can not prosecute or hold an individual accountable for this alleged crime then it the term rape does not apply.

False

[LadyForCamus]

So, what is non-consensual sex if it's not rape?

In short non consensual sex in non prosecutible 'rape.' (for the lack of a better term.) Rape is a term that describes a criminal act. if the government can not prosecute or hold an individual accountable for this alleged crime then it the term rape does not apply.

That's hilariously incorrect as has been thoroughly demonstrated to you here.  But, keep horning off anyway, as usual.

[Losty]

Bold mine:

There is no distinguishable difference between "forced sex" and "rape" with regard to the harm it causes those who are on the receiving end of such an act.

But -- but -- words are more important than people!

What annoys me is that he's wrong about the word to begin with. There's no difference between forced sex and rape in any regards. Murder is a legal term defined as unlawful killing, rape is not legally defined as unlawful sex it's defined only as nonconsensual penetration. Even if you cannot prosecute someone the alleged action would still be called rape in the eyes of the law.

[Drich]

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..

....Just think you'd be more successful at this if you went about it in a better way. While I've made the effort to actually engage with you, you will notice dozens of people just hurled insults and then left. Think of all the discussions you would have had with them otherwise.

but again we are measuring sucess in different ways. I am looking at the journey, and it seems you are looking at obtaining an objective/destination. I don't measure nor look to measure what people think/final conclusion I am just trying to make the needle move.

I understand most people will not change their position unless the crowd they identify with does so. That means most interactions are pointless no matter how you broach the subject. For example how many people have you converted to Catholicism from here or places like this? If your objective is to successfully 'win' every argument then at some point you should be hold a mass baptism somewhere right?

When I came here 4 or 5 years ago the bar was set pretty low. (In terms of the theological debates and arguements) Real bottom of the 'thinker' barrel. 'Can God create a rock so big he can not lift it? What happened to all the fish durning the flood, the epicurean paradox, Long lists of why does a 'good' God______ ect..

Now I approached all of this as a heartless robot, and I got nothing but pure steaming hate for at least a year or two, but a funny thing began to happen... I started to note that all the cliche atheist fare began to disappear, and some really good questions came out, and I feel the primary members of this site are indeed growing past the basic questions other atheist sites center themselves around.

Again, i am playing the long game. i am not concerned with individual subjects and 'winning them' but rather I am trying to help people see things differently, to move past their 'feelings on God and to think a little more like a 'robot' in some instances. Which to me again is the journey and not a specific destination. I am not looking to drag anyone to heaven with me, I am simply trying to get them to drop the self supporting atheist narratives based on stereotypes and religion and look at what is simply and truthfully out there. To think past what their crowd of choice thinks of a given situation.. To ask another question to seek the truth, and not give up when they don't hear what they want to hear.

This particular thread was an attempt to show (those who automatically oppose everything I have to say) that just because I say something your not immediately comfortable with does not mean we can not agree on some of the finer points. which should (if and when I repeat this type of post) should cause some of you to pause before you move to dismiss. This very thing has happened several different times over the course of the thread. Again I did things your perscribed way for a very long time. (5 years at CF.com plus my face to face minstries) but again no change.

Look at my last post to you as an example. When people are trying to be nice, they tell you what you want to hear. I told you what you wanted to hear and breifly considered trying to somehow impliment what you suggested... but given 1/2 an hour I reverted back to my original position, because I knew your way does not work with what I want to do.

Now do not miss read that I am not saying you way can never work.. You are a Barnabas (a encourager) you are a heart to the body of Christ.. But we All Can't be Hearts.. we all can't be a Barnabas we can all approach ministry in the same way you do.

That said i do understand that you do get more flies with honey.

[LadyForCamus]

Drich is the master of definition manipulation for the purpose of suiting his needs in a particular discussion. He will literally MANGLE a word to the point that it is unrecognizable just to save face. Then, after making himself look like a complete fool for clinging to one grotesquely mutilated definition rather than admit he was proven unequivocally wrong about something, he'll flaunt "victory". It's like...one of the saddest things I've ever witnessed around here.

[LadyForCamus]

....Just think you'd be more successful at this if you went about it in a better way. While I've made the effort to actually engage with you, you will notice dozens of people just hurled insults and then left. Think of all the discussions you would have had with them otherwise.

but again we are measuring sucess in different ways. I am looking at the journey, and it seems you are looking at obtaining an objective/destination. I don't measure nor look to measure what people think/final conclusion I am just trying to make the needle move.

I understand most people will not change their position unless the crowd they identify with does so. That means most interactions are pointless no matter how you broach the subject. For example how many people have you converted to Catholicism from here or places like this? If your objective is to successfully 'win' every argument then at some point you should be hold a mass baptism somewhere right?

When I came here 4 or 5 years ago the bar was set pretty low. (In terms of the theological debates and arguements) Real bottom of the 'thinker' barrel. 'Can God create a rock so big he can not lift it? What happened to all the fish durning the flood, the epicurean paradox, Long lists of why does a 'good' God______ ect..

Now I approached all of this as a heartless robot, and I got nothing but pure steaming hate for at least a year or two, but a funny thing began to happen... I started to note that all the cliche atheist fare began to disappear, and some really good questions came out, and I feel the primary members of this site are indeed growing past the basic questions other atheist sites center themselves around.

Again, i am playing the long game. i am not concerned with individual subjects and 'winning them' but rather I am trying to help people see things differently, to move past their 'feelings on God and to think a little more like a 'robot' in some instances. Which to me again is the journey and not a specific destination. I am not looking to drag anyone to heaven with me, I am simply trying to get them to drop the self supporting atheist narratives based on stereotypes and religion and look at what is simply and truthfully out there. To think past what their crowd of choice thinks of a given situation.. To ask another question to seek the truth, and not give up when they don't hear what they want to hear.

This particular thread was an attempt to show (those who automatically oppose everything I have to say) that just because I say something your not immediately comfortable with does not mean we can not agree on some of the finer points. which should (if and when I repeat this type of post) should cause some of you to pause before you move to dismiss. This very thing has happened several different times over the course of the thread. Again I did things your perscribed way for a very long time. (5 years at CF.com plus my face to face minstries) but again no change.

Look at my last post to you as an example. When people are trying to be nice, they tell you what you want to hear. I told you what you wanted to hear and breifly considered trying to somehow impliment what you suggested... but given 1/2 an hour I reverted back to my original position, because I knew your way does not work with what I want to do.

Now do not miss read that I am not saying you way can never work.. You are a Barnabas (a encourager) you are a heart to the body of Christ.. But we All Can't be Hearts.. we all can't be a Barnabas we can all approach ministry in the same way you do.

That said i do understand that you do get more flies with honey.

See, CL?  Drich isn't here to "discuss" anything with an open mind.  His mind is already made up:  He is right about everything, and we are wrong about everything.  We, the  sad, mislead flock.  He's here to show us the error of our ways and lead us to God.  It's not a fruitful discussion if one person simply refuses to ever consider a POV beyond their own.

[Drich]

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.

According to the United States attorney general rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

So...you're wrong. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-...ition-rape

Actually you are confusing a press release that defines the criminal act (rape law) with the broad scope defination (or legal defination of the word) I provided a link and only ever repersented the legal defination of the word. The legal defination start by identifying rape as an unlawful criminal act. Your link define specifically what constitutes the criminal act of rape.. My link defines what constitutes a criminal act.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+p...iminal+act
(From us legal definitions .com)
Criminal act is an act committed by a person that violates a law and which is punishable by the government. Criminal acts are offenses against the public which are punishable. It can be any act or omission or possession which poses a threat to the public.

IF rape is not considered a 'criminal act' then again effectively there is no difference between that and consensual sex legally speaking.

This is all I'm saying as a motivator for victims to report sooner rather than later.

[Shell B]

Lol, no one asked you to define a criminal act. Find a fucking source for your definition. You're dodging it over and over again.

As for you believing you have shaped the conversation of this forum . . . holy shit. That's twice in this thread you've mentioned having delusions of grandeur. I honestly wonder if you're not in need of a professional. I don't mean that in an insulting way.

[Huggy Bear]

The legal defination start by identifying rape as an unlawful criminal act.

IF rape is not considered a 'criminal act' then again effectively there is no difference between that and consensual sex legally speaking.

[Losty]

According to the United States attorney general rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

So...you're wrong. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-...ition-rape

Actually you are confusing a press release that defines the criminal act (rape law) with the broad scope defination (or legal defination of the word) I provided a link and only ever repersented the legal defination of the word. The legal defination start by identifying rape as an unlawful criminal act. Your link define specifically what constitutes the criminal act of rape.. My link defines what constitutes a criminal act.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+p...iminal+act
(From us legal definitions .com)
Criminal act is an act committed by a person that violates a law and which is punishable by the government. Criminal acts are offenses against the public which are punishable. It can be any act or omission or possession which poses a threat to the public.

IF rape is not considered a 'criminal act' then again effectively there is no difference between that and consensual sex legally speaking.

This is all I'm saying as a motivator for victims to report sooner rather than later.

You're now defining a completely different word. >.>