| Register  | FAQ  | Search | Login 
It is currently Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:51 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:48 pm 
Can't Dance, Isn't Part of Revolution
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 154
Tofulish wrote:
I responded to the gist of SB's critique upthread, but Bun is right, that the use of the term "shitty outcome" really minimizes the effects of the verdict and shows up the same privilege that was at play in granting the verdict.


I find everything about this situation to be reprehensible, but I'm not sure exactly how to express that without upsetting you and bun. Could you please tell me what words I'm allowed to use to express my disgust in regards to this case, or any other case that upsets you? I don't want to make the same mistake as shortbus, and I'm not sure if calling the results repugnant and horrible is good enough for you. And, to be honest, I also feel that "shitty outcome" conveys the exact same idea that the outcome of the case was terrible. Is the problem just that you just really hate obscenities?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:09 pm 
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 2909
At least we've identified the real victims here.

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:23 pm 
Discovered unobtainium
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 9:21 pm
Posts: 11055
Location: VA
mumbles wrote:
At least we've identified the real victims here.


Now we know who to blame.

_________________
"This is the creepiest post ever if you don't know who Molly is." -Fee
"a vegan death match sounds like something where we all end up hugging." -LisaPunk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:31 pm 
Bought a used copy of Natural Harvest
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:29 pm
Posts: 5878
Oh, Jinkies! I see by perusing your post history that you come out of the wood work, much like shortbus, every so often to stir shiitake. Welcome back!

_________________
Did you notice the slight feeling of panic at the words "Chicken Basin Street"? Like someone was walking over your grave? Try not to remember. We must never remember. - mumbles
Is this about devilberries and nazifruit again? - footface


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:46 pm 
Can't Dance, Isn't Part of Revolution
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 154
paprikapapaya wrote:
Oh, Jinkies! I see by perusing your post history that you come out of the wood work, much like shortbus, every so often to stir shiitake. Welcome back!


I haven't had anyone throw a thousand mindless strawmen at me in ages, so it felt like time. Feel free to argue against a bunch of things I never said this time, too! I see mumbles already got the mindless strawmen started, so yay mumbles!

As for this thread, my comment is honest and not intended to cause any controversy. I am honestly interested in knowing which words I can use on the PPK so as not to offend other members. As you're quite aware, I have no idea how not to offend people here. I'd hate to say something is horrible (like the entire situation detailed in the OP), only to find out that calling it "horrible" isn't the right sort of language to use. If you could answer my question instead of launching a barrage of personal attacks or strawmen this time, that'd be incredibly helpful!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:56 pm 
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 2909
I don't think you know what 'strawman' means.

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:56 pm 
WRETCHED
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7990
Location: Maryland/DC area
There is a word for someone who only comes out of the woodwork only to stir shiitake up... can't quite think of it... it'll come to me, I know it will.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:23 pm 
Can't Dance, Isn't Part of Revolution
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 154
mumbles wrote:
I don't think you know what 'strawman' means.


I don't think you know what your 'previous post' means. I'm pretty sure we all correctly identified the victim after reading the OP. I'm fairly certain that I'm both not portraying myself as a victim here, nor am I in any way attempting to reduce the status of the actual victim. To insinuate otherwise is to fabricate a position that would reflect badly upon me.

I agree with the thread consensus in all respects regarding this case. I'd just like to know why calling the results "shitty" is so offensive to multiple PPKers. That sort of issue is why I so rarely post here. Everything I say is consistently misunderstood or misrepresented. I'm honestly interested in understanding why this happens so that I can avoid it happening in the future. I rarely disagree with people here, and I mainly avoid posting because things like this happen so often. If simply changing my word choice would fix some of the problems, that'd be helpful to know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:34 pm 
WRETCHED
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7990
Location: Maryland/DC area
1) You are playing the victim here, don't try to deny it.

2) As much as feeding trolls can be fun, I doubt your sincerity but if you hadn't come across as passive-aggressive (or really aggressive-aggressive) maybe we could have a real conversation

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:37 pm 
rowdily playing checkers
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 2909
Jinkies! wrote:
I don't think you know what your 'previous post' means. I'm pretty sure we all correctly identified the victim after reading the OP. I'm fairly certain that I'm both not portraying myself as a victim here, nor am I in any way attempting to reduce the status of the actual victim. To insinuate otherwise is to fabricate a position that would reflect badly upon me.

I think you are trying to portray yourself as a victim, and I was warning you that martyring yourself again in this thread might be regarded as distasteful. This is not a distortion of your argument (a straw man), particularly since you haven't made one. It is, instead, a characterization of your behavior.

_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 2:45 pm 
Semen Strong
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 18627
Location: Cliffbar NJ
Jinkies! wrote:
Tofulish wrote:
I responded to the gist of SB's critique upthread, but Bun is right, that the use of the term "shitty outcome" really minimizes the effects of the verdict and shows up the same privilege that was at play in granting the verdict.


I find everything about this situation to be reprehensible, but I'm not sure exactly how to express that without upsetting you and bun. Could you please tell me what words I'm allowed to use to express my disgust in regards to this case, or any other case that upsets you? I don't want to make the same mistake as shortbus, and I'm not sure if calling the results repugnant and horrible is good enough for you. And, to be honest, I also feel that "shitty outcome" conveys the exact same idea that the outcome of the case was terrible. Is the problem just that you just really hate obscenities?


I am fine with your descriptors and I will parse my reasoning, which is quite simple.

(1) shortbus quarrels with the outcome but not the process. So basically he is saying it is fine to restrict the application of a law to the point that "physical helplessness" as a legal term of art become so different from our understanding of "physical helplessness" that a woman who can only move a finger and grunt is not considered physically helpless. A woman tied on a stretcher (but not gagged) is not physically helpless. You're only physically helpless if you are unconscious or dead.

(2) I find it problematic to interpret a law so strictly that it ends up protecting rapists, where clearly that isn't the intent of the law makers. The law is being an asparagus here, and a patriarchal asparagus because it is saying "physical helplessness is a term of art that is so narrow that no jury could reasonably have found (this is the legal standard required to set aside the jury verdict) a victim that can move a finger, kick and grunt to be physically helpless." The Court threw out the findings of fact by a jury who heard 4 days of testimony by a woman who can only communicate by spelling our her testimony one word at a time with scrabble tiles, saying that she very obviously wasn't physically helpless.

(3) You are saying the situation is repugnant. I assume that means both the outcome and the process. So I agree with you.

Its not that the word "shitty" isn't bad enough. Its the focus on the outcome while saying that the process is fine. So my issue is with the words "shitty outcome but"

I hope that helps.

_________________
But on a cold winter night, when the wind whispers through the trees and a bright, white moon hangs heavy in the air, you might hear a sad cry like someone thinking he knows what's best for you, and that'll be the white man a-passin' you by. just mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:11 pm 
Wrote Dissertation on Vegans, Meat, and the Deserted Island Question
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:32 pm
Posts: 1650
Wow, this case is really really horrible.

And also, who lifted the rock?

Mat.

_________________
Lady Gaga and Beyonce should run her over with the kitten Wagon for that one comment alone - Torque (speaking of Katy Perry)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:16 pm 
Can't Dance, Isn't Part of Revolution
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:34 pm
Posts: 154
Tofulish wrote:
Jinkies! wrote:
Tofulish wrote:
I responded to the gist of SB's critique upthread, but Bun is right, that the use of the term "shitty outcome" really minimizes the effects of the verdict and shows up the same privilege that was at play in granting the verdict.


I find everything about this situation to be reprehensible, but I'm not sure exactly how to express that without upsetting you and bun. Could you please tell me what words I'm allowed to use to express my disgust in regards to this case, or any other case that upsets you? I don't want to make the same mistake as shortbus, and I'm not sure if calling the results repugnant and horrible is good enough for you. And, to be honest, I also feel that "shitty outcome" conveys the exact same idea that the outcome of the case was terrible. Is the problem just that you just really hate obscenities?


I am fine with your descriptors and I will parse my reasoning, which is quite simple.

(1) shortbus quarrels with the outcome but not the process. So basically he is saying it is fine to restrict the application of a law to the point that "physical helplessness" as a legal term of art become so different from our understanding of "physical helplessness" that a woman who can only move a finger and grunt is not considered physically helpless. A woman tied on a stretcher (but not gagged) is not physically helpless. You're only physically helpless if you are unconscious or dead.

(2) I find it problematic to interpret a law so strictly that it ends up protecting rapists, where clearly that isn't the intent of the law makers. The law is being an asparagus here, and a patriarchal asparagus because it is saying "physical helplessness is a term of art that is so narrow that no jury could reasonably have found (this is the legal standard required to set aside the jury verdict) a victim that can move a finger, kick and grunt to be physically helpless." The Court threw out the findings of fact by a jury who heard 4 days of testimony by a woman who can only communicate by spelling our her testimony one word at a time with scrabble tiles, saying that she very obviously wasn't physically helpless.

(3) You are saying the situation is repugnant. I assume that means both the outcome and the process. So I agree with you.

Its not that the word "shitty" isn't bad enough. Its the focus on the outcome while saying that the process is fine. So my issue is with the words "shitty outcome but"

I hope that helps.


Thank you! I agree with everything you said here. I think I can see where shortbus was coming from in his post, though. I think it's more that shortbus understood how they arrived at the ruling, not necessarily that he agreed with how they arrived at the ruling. It's more "I recognize the issues that led to this outcome" than "I agree with the issues that led to this outcome." I may be reading him incorrectly, though.

Whatever definition of "physically helpless" they were using in this case, though, it was a terrible one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 4:15 pm 
Level 7 Vegan
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:41 am
Posts: 1540
Location: "HOLLAND"
Tofulish wrote:
Its not that the word "shitty" isn't bad enough. Its the focus on the outcome while saying that the process is fine. So my issue is with the words "shitty outcome but" .

To be honest, the trivialization implied by the words "shitty outcome" was in fact what set me off this morning, as I was personally offended. That's all I'll say on the matter, because I refuse to feed the troll.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:08 pm 
Huffs Nutritional Yeast
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:05 pm
Posts: 110
The amusing thing about this is I intentionally went with shitty rather than unfortunate because I guessed it would ignite this sort of tiff in the first place.

Also, thank you Tofulish for reading my mind and communicating what I am apparently incapable of writing for myself. To be clear, my only intention was to refute the notion that the ruling didn't make sense from a strictly legal perspective. I understand how you could take the evidence presented, the definitions used under the law, and reach the same conclusion. That was the entire intention of my post. Any other intention or inference attributed to myself is purely the interpretation of the reader.

I have no interest in discussing the process. The process is what it is and nothing you nor I do, nor any amount of indignation, is going to change it. This isn't the first time the legal process has failed someone and it certainly won't be the last. Frankly, I find a verdict like this hardly surprising, but rather par for the course, but I've been called a cynic.

_________________
The above has probably offended you. I have found it impossible to post to these forums without offending someone. I have preemptively said 25 hail seitans in the hope that I may appease the ppk gods and not be smote from these boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:19 pm 
WRETCHED
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7990
Location: Maryland/DC area
shortbus wrote:
The amusing thing about this is I intentionally went with shitty rather than unfortunate because I guessed it would ignite this sort of tiff in the first place.


So trolling, gotcha.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:35 pm 
Grandfathered In
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Posts: 9163
Location: Seattle
(I think he meant he went with "shitty" instead of "unfortunate" because he figured "unfortunate" would rub people the wrong way.)

_________________
Did somebody say Keep on rockin?


Top
 Profile WWW  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:41 pm 
Semen Strong
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 18627
Location: Cliffbar NJ
shortbus wrote:
Also, thank you Tofulish for reading my mind and communicating what I am apparently incapable of writing for myself.


You're welcome.

_________________
But on a cold winter night, when the wind whispers through the trees and a bright, white moon hangs heavy in the air, you might hear a sad cry like someone thinking he knows what's best for you, and that'll be the white man a-passin' you by. just mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:47 pm 
Huffs Nutritional Yeast
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:05 pm
Posts: 110
FootFace wrote:
(I think he meant he went with "shitty" instead of "unfortunate" because he figured "unfortunate" would rub people the wrong way.)


Ever the voice of reason.

_________________
The above has probably offended you. I have found it impossible to post to these forums without offending someone. I have preemptively said 25 hail seitans in the hope that I may appease the ppk gods and not be smote from these boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:52 pm 
Huffs Nutritional Yeast
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:05 pm
Posts: 110
linanil wrote:
So trolling, gotcha.

matwinser wrote:
And also, who lifted the rock?


Contrary to popular opinion, I do not troll these forums. I only crawl out from under my rock when I see a potential for having intelligent discourse on an interesting topic. I am once again reminded that this isn't likely to happen here. Really, I should have learned my lesson by now. I'll crawl back under my rock now.

_________________
The above has probably offended you. I have found it impossible to post to these forums without offending someone. I have preemptively said 25 hail seitans in the hope that I may appease the ppk gods and not be smote from these boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:57 pm 
Just Loathin' Around!
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:17 pm
Posts: 6640
Location: bindlestiff
mumbles wrote:
At least we've identified the real victims here.

heh heh heh.

_________________
Whoopie pies are always a good idea. ---P. bisque

Panda With Cookie


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:13 pm 
Semen Strong
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:10 pm
Posts: 18627
Location: Cliffbar NJ
shortbus wrote:
I only crawl out from under my rock when I see a potential for having intelligent discourse on an interesting topic.


You do realize that you didn't phrase anything in a way that was conducive to discussion and that when I responded to your post, you preferred to act like the victim instead of actually having an intelligent discussion.

If you wanted an intelligent discussion, you could have (1) responded to my post and told me why I was wrong that the process doesn't make sense because it is part of a line of cases that makes this particular type of sexual assault/rape nearly impossible to bring which is not in line with the intent of the law, (2) you could have tried to be responsible for your word choice and asked what was offensive, and (3) you could have raised a point in defense of the process that others here haven't raised.

But for any intelligent discussion, you have to be respectful of the people you're talking to and be willing to consider and debate your position. Not just say "It was a shitty outcome but hey it made sense and she is SOL."

I don't remember the last thread you were in, just that bastah came to apologize for what you had said and she told us you had learned from your experience, but I guess not.

_________________
But on a cold winter night, when the wind whispers through the trees and a bright, white moon hangs heavy in the air, you might hear a sad cry like someone thinking he knows what's best for you, and that'll be the white man a-passin' you by. just mumbles


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:26 pm 
***LIES!!!***
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:10 pm
Posts: 3427
I thought it was pretty well accepted that occasionally following the process dictated by the law legitimately leads to not okay conclusions? If four judges thought this process was legitimate, it's because the law was written badly and has been interpreted badly, not necessarily because they are necessarily going about the process incorrectly as allowed for by the law. Clearly it's an incomprehensibly bad law if it's not possible for what must be intelligent people to come to a non-horrific judgment in the case! It's hard for me to believe that four judges could be so unanimously hateful as to come to this conclusion if that isn't the situation.

And my understanding is that they wouldn't be able to re-prosecute for the same crime, so now what? Hopefully the petition will inspire a change in the legislature since I don't think anything can be done for the victim in criminal court at this point. Hopefully an advocate for her will open a civil case as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:35 pm 
Huffs Nutritional Yeast
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:05 pm
Posts: 110
Tofulish wrote:
shortbus wrote:
I only crawl out from under my rock when I see a potential for having intelligent discourse on an interesting topic.


You do realize that you didn't phrase anything in a way that was conducive to discussion and that when I responded to your post, you preferred to act like the victim instead of actually having an intelligent discussion.

If you wanted an intelligent discussion, you could have (1) responded to my post and told me why I was wrong that the process doesn't make sense because it is part of a line of cases that makes this particular type of sexual assault/rape nearly impossible to bring which is not in line with the intent of the law, (2) you could have tried to be responsible for your word choice and asked what was offensive, and (3) you could have raised a point in defense of the process that others here haven't raised.

But for any intelligent discussion, you have to be respectful of the people you're talking to and be willing to consider and debate your position. Not just say "It was a shitty outcome but hey it made sense and she is SOL."

I don't remember the last thread you were in, just that bastah came to apologize for what you had said and she told us you had learned from your experience, but I guess not.


So far off topic that I'm just not. However, give me some credit; although, I did figure the inflammatory sentence would be the one following. Eh, guess I really just can't read you.

_________________
The above has probably offended you. I have found it impossible to post to these forums without offending someone. I have preemptively said 25 hail seitans in the hope that I may appease the ppk gods and not be smote from these boards.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: CT Supreme Ct - If you can't say "NO" You Consent (Trigg
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:38 pm 
WRETCHED
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 6:54 pm
Posts: 7990
Location: Maryland/DC area
I assumed sine you were being abrasive that you were saying you chose words that would be inflammatory, my mistake.

_________________
You are all a disgrace to vegans. Go f*ck yourselves, especially linanil.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Template made by DEVPPL/ThatBigForum and fancied up by What Cheer