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

[Drich]

But here's the thing with that...

The Law and the definition of the terms set by the law, are what determins actionable recourse by society of one who is ACCUSED of Rape or Murder...

In other words it is YOU who is the one playing a semantical game. When you decide to call people not prosecuted of rape for what ever reason rapists... or when you equate a killer with a murderer.

This is very dangerous boarder line insane behavior because it throws the presumed innocents clause (what this country's laws were founded upon) out the window and it assigns guilt where one must prove innocence. For what? the preservation of a victim culture???

No.. That is not right. If we are to remain innocent until proven guilty we must compel each other to know what the law says and operate with in it. Which includes knowing and identify with it's definitions and when society breaks away, to be able to identify with the law and come down on the side of the law.

Otherwise you will have a blurring of the line between justice and vengeance. (rioters) This is a perfect example when the pop culture rewrites morality/the law.

The problem with your rebuttal is that we were never discussing the accused when all this nastiness went down, were we?  We were talking about the trauma, and how victims process it.

That trauma is what you objected to so crudely.  I honestly don't believe that you were talking about legal implications for the accused at all, otherwise you wouldn't have alluded to alleged victims having ulterior motives for reporting rapes late after the fact.  You were asserting the motivations of victims.  

I think you know it was a nasty thing to say, even for you, and now you're trying to wiggle out of your implications with legal definitions and semantics.  Of course...this is nothing more than my opinion based on how I've interpreted your posts.

Look at it this way:  If someone steals my car and I don't report it, then perhaps you can argue that that the "crime of car theft" never technically, legally occurred.  But, someone STILL stole my car. I still suffer the consequences of my car having been stolen.

If a man breaks into a woman's house and forcibly, vaginally penetrates her...then...he forcibly, vaginally penetrated her.  It is an intimate, violent action against another human being, and that human being is going to suffer the psychological/emotional consequences of such an assault, regardless of whether or not it is legally recognized as a "crime of rape" in the eyes of the law.  You jerking-off in response to that trauma is the issue here.

But again, in order for actionable response to any alleged crime, one must report it.

If you don't then as I said it is like it never happened.

My Emoji was meant to illecite a negative response. Why? because if you took any or all of those excuses to any cop 5 years after the fact, I'm sure you'd get a Catholic Lady's response to your report, but in the end what the emoji is doing is all your going to get in the way of 'justice.'

Now ask yourself what is better if you are 4 years and 360 days in from being raped yourself... Being mad at me for telling you that your rights/legal recourse you had are about to be flushed in a way that makes you uncomfortable.. Or would it be better if i just took my turn in line to offer you pity so that you could continue being a silent victim and find out 10 years down the line when you finally feel ready to do or say something that my emoji truly represents what can be done for you.

Could I have done it more tactfully?

Yes..

[Drich]

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.


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.

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.

That's crap..

Consent is the difference.

Some people like the 'fight/struggle.'

Alot of traditional Asian sexual culture is based on this type of sexual experience. Boarder line rape is almost like missionary sex here.

A woman is not suppose to like/enjoy sex in a traditional context. the hook, for the guy is to be so good that he can make her drop the cultural values and force his partner to enjoy themselves.

The point being forced sex is not always rape. What makes it rape is consent which points back to my original argument that consent is the only difference between rape and any other type of sex. And you can not prove consent.

[Drich]

Drich, the problem here is that you are asserting that the definition of rape is the criminal act. I've provided an entire Internet full of definitions that contradict that. You have yet to provide even one that supports your narrow definition. Whether you like it or not, you're provably, undeniably incorrect. Your entire argument rests on, at best, a bad grasp of the language or, at worst, a manufactured fallacy designed to discredit rape victims. I won't presume to know which it is, but you could at least try to back up your assertion. It should be easy enough, if that is the true definition.

so rape is not a criminal act? what post number has this information again? i must have missed it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

So I'm not the only one who finds his intentional ignorance annoying?

[Drich]

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.

so again what post number shows this to be wrong???

I've left 3 post with links that say otherwise.

[Drich]

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.

not true see above

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

lol, you sparked the flowering thought of this forum? You?

You give yourself too much credit, asshole. The only thing I've ever seen you add is a turd in the punchbowl of whatever thread it is you're trying to poison at the moment. This thread itself is a splendid example of that: your only contributions have been factually incorrect and emotionally hateful.

[Huggy Bear]

The point being forced sex is not always rape.

Only if you're Japanese.  

*edit*
I was just cracking a quick joke, but after having actually read your post, I'm kinda shocked to see that's the point you we're actually making.

lol

[Drich]

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.

I haven't mangled anything I cut and pasted definition from US Legal Definitions.

You have identified the problem correctly. In that one of us is twisting definitions to suit our personal understanding of how things should work.. you are just confused on your role and mine.

I made the statement that rape as a criminal act (not an unprossicutable accusation) is only legally actionable if it fits within the definition/parameters of a criminal act. If it doesn't then there is no difference between rape (legally speaking) and forced sex... which despite western prohibition fuels the majority world's traditional view on sex.

[Drich]

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.

then quantify my last line