Does "Unable To Consent" = "Unaccountable For Their Actions"?

[ok doser]

This occurred to me while thinking about Christine Blasey Ford, the darling of the feminist/leftist/progressive/"Me Too" crowd.

A key component of her testimony involved the admission that she attended an underage drinking party at the age of 15. If there was any acknowledgement by our national "leaders" that what she did was wrong and illegal, I missed it. I suppose it is the sort of thing that gets beaten down in fear of being attacked with cries of victim-blaming, especially in matters of rape, or almost rape, or "it could have been rape if it had gone further and become rape", or "i was afraid it might have been rape or become rape or whatever - so don't victimblame me because my victimhood (or almost victimhood) trumps any bad behavior or poor choices or illegal behavior on my part."

A similar case was in the public eye two years ago when "Katie Johnson" accused Donald Trump of raping her in 1994. It turns out that her claim involves the admission that she was attending an adult party with drinking at the age of 13. Like the case with Ford, not a single peep that perhaps she shouldn't have done that, that breaking the law is wrong.

And in a third, different case, we have Thompson and Venables, two brits who, at the age of 10 years old, planned and carried out the kidnapping, torture and murder of 2 year old James Patrick Bulger. Some here at tol have argued interminably that they were too young to be held responsible for their actions.

 

[ok doser]

 

[Stripe]

Don't worry, there's no corroborating evidence to the alterations against her.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

 

[Jonahdog]

So is your issue under age drinking? Clearly an issue adults should be concerned with.

 

[Stripe]

So is your issue under age drinking?

No, it was the false witness' issue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

So is your issue under age drinking? Clearly an issue adults should be concerned with.

should children be expected to follow the law?

 

[nikolai_42]

This occurred to me while thinking about Christine Blasey Ford, the darling of the feminist/leftist/progressive/"Me Too" crowd.

A key component of her testimony involved the admission that she attended an underage drinking party at the age of 15. If there was any acknowledgement by our national "leaders" that what she did was wrong and illegal, I missed it. I suppose it is the sort of thing that gets beaten down in fear of being attacked with cries of victim-blaming, especially in matters of rape, or almost rape, or "it could have been rape if it had gone further and become rape", or "i was afraid it might have been rape or become rape or whatever - so don't victimblame me because my victimhood (or almost victimhood) trumps any bad behavior or poor choices or illegal behavior on my part."

I would suggest that they think it a slippery slope to blaming the woman because she was too enticing (or something along those lines). But in trying to avoid one extreme, they are going to another : claiming virtual public sainthood - and immunity from questioning - for anyone who claims to be victim.

My take on the whole mess is that it was only meant as a PR campaign because it was clear that the allegations would never survive legal scrutiny. Hoping to capitalize on a movement with a considerable political component to it, the democrats knew that public perception would not favor those who went after Ford on what (legally speaking) would have been an issue only to cast doubt on the reliability of testimony. From the standpoint of public sympathy, anyone who would do that could be easily cast in the light of trying to deflect from the allegation ("this is about Kavanaugh's actions, not Ford's drinking") and public opinion would - in theory - shift to favor the democrats. But on the other hand, it's dirty politics to use someone simply for political ends. I don't think her story has nearly enough to give her credibility (she flew frequently before the hearing, the double door was added to the house 5 years BEFORE the 2012 therapy sessions - and was for the purposes of renting out part of their home, their second house doesn't have any double doors and they recently did renovations to it etc....). None of this, bears directly on what Kavanaugh is supposed to have done to her. And again, drinking would have cast her (in a trial) in a less favorable light because she wouldn't look so innocent and (more importantly) her ability to accurately recall events (which her witnesses couldn't corroborate) would also be called into question.

So have a hearing - not a trial - in which everything is informal but where the idea is to let her voice her complaints. Then apologize to her over and over to legitimize her story - and do so ahead of Kavanaugh when all he could do would be to either deny a story that isn't legally proven or simply use his character to show he couldn't have done what he did. That's why the Democrats attacked his character. To contrast with the kid gloves they expected Ford to be handled with.

And then, of course, the Republicans using a sex crimes prosecutor in a non-trial situation (and using the conclusions from said hearing - which the prosecutor admitted were insufficient to properly hear her allegations) to give it more force. That wasn't good either. But I would suggest they had no choice. If the Democrats are going to use someone (assuming she was just a dupe and not a co-belligerent) to further their political ends, that backs the Republicans into a corner. When a hearing is called, the idea is that burden of proof is not a consideration. But even in the public eye, burden of proof is a reality that has to be addressed (formally or not).

A similar case was in the public eye two years ago when "Katie Johnson" accused Donald Trump of raping her in 1994. It turns out that her claim involves the admission that she was attending an adult party with drinking at the age of 13. Like the case with Ford, not a single peep that perhaps she shouldn't have done that, that breaking the law is wrong.

Again, drinking is a side issue and only applicable insofar as it goes to credibility of testimony. Sure, it may be against the law, but so is theft. What if Kavanaugh had (inadvertently or not) taken a trash can with him from the house in question? Would that be theft? Technically, yes. But who cares? Why should that have any impact on the question of assault? And in Ford's case, if she - as the victim - was drinking, why does that mean she is less a victim?

And in a third, different case, we have Thompson and Venables, two brits who, at the age of 10 years old, planned and carried out the kidnapping, torture and murder of 2 year old James Patrick Bulger. Some here at tol have argued interminably that they were too young to be held responsible for their actions.

I don't think this is really related to the Ford question. According to the law, anyone capable of a guilty act - including forming intent - bears some culpability under the law. The question of whether they had guilty consciences might have played a role in sentencing (capital punishment is not an option in cases involving diminished mental capacity, for example), but as soon as they kidnapped the toddler, that should have established something of an understanding that they were doing something forcibly and something wrong. These were, after all 2 ten year olds with a 2 year old. Not 1 ten year old with (say) another boy his own age. But I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Jonahdog]

should children be expected to follow the law?

Sure, but Kavanaugh did not when he was underage. So, she had a beer, he was drunk and it is her fault.got it

 

[Stripe]

Sounds like this moron was there.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

Sure,

I agree

but Kavanaugh did not when he was underage.

And kavanaugh's drinking habits came under a great deal of scrutiny, as they should have

So, she had a beer, he was drunk

That's her claim, yes


So far you're doing really good! :thumb:

...and it is her fault.got it

Awwwww

You went full retard

 

[jgarden]

This occurred to me while thinking about Christine Blasey Ford, the darling of the feminist/leftist/progressive/"Me Too" crowd.

A key component of her testimony involved the admission that she attended an underage drinking party at the age of 15. If there was any acknowledgement by our national "leaders" that what she did was wrong and illegal, I missed it. I suppose it is the sort of thing that gets beaten down in fear of being attacked with cries of victim-blaming, especially in matters of rape, or almost rape, or "it could have been rape if it had gone further and become rape", or "i was afraid it might have been rape or become rape or whatever - so don't victimblame me because my victimhood (or almost victimhood) trumps any bad behavior or poor choices or illegal behavior on my part."

A similar case was in the public eye two years ago when "Katie Johnson" accused Donald Trump of raping her in 1994. It turns out that her claim involves the admission that she was attending an adult party with drinking at the age of 13. Like the case with Ford, not a single peep that perhaps she shouldn't have done that, that breaking the law is wrong.

And in a third, different case, we have Thompson and Venables, two brits who, at the age of 10 years old, planned and carried out the kidnapping, torture and murder of 2 year old James Patrick Bulger. Some here at tol have argued interminably that they were too young to be held responsible for their actions.

It would appear that "ok doser" wants to hold everyone responsible for their actions except the "adults" in the room - and only if those adults happen to be "conservatives!"

What is there about conservatives associated with Trump where engaging in "inappropriate" behaviour with minors is a reoccurring theme?

 

[ok doser]

It would appear that "ok doser" wants to hold everyone responsible for their actions ....

Yes, that's correct

People should be held responsible for their actions

And they should expect to suffer the consequences of those actions, if they were of that nature

It's called reaping what you sow

 

[JudgeRightly]

This occurred to me while thinking about Christine Blasey Ford, the darling of the feminist/leftist/progressive/"Me Too" crowd.

A key component of her testimony involved the admission that she attended an underage drinking party at the age of 15. If there was any acknowledgement by our national "leaders" that what she did was wrong and illegal, I missed it. I suppose it is the sort of thing that gets beaten down in fear of being attacked with cries of victim-blaming, especially in matters of rape, or almost rape, or "it could have been rape if it had gone further and become rape", or "i was afraid it might have been rape or become rape or whatever - so don't victimblame me because my victimhood (or almost victimhood) trumps any bad behavior or poor choices or illegal behavior on my part."

A similar case was in the public eye two years ago when "Katie Johnson" accused Donald Trump of raping her in 1994. It turns out that her claim involves the admission that she was attending an adult party with drinking at the age of 13. Like the case with Ford, not a single peep that perhaps she shouldn't have done that, that breaking the law is wrong.

And in a third, different case, we have Thompson and Venables, two brits who, at the age of 10 years old, planned and carried out the kidnapping, torture and murder of 2 year old James Patrick Bulger. Some here at tol have argued interminably that they were too young to be held responsible for their actions.

In a perfect society, drunkenness would be a crime (no, not drinking, for those reading; drinking is fine and should not be made illegal, getting drunk or becoming intoxicated is not) and punishable by flogging, and rape would be illegal and punishable by death.

People who would get drunk would be flogged, because they're not only putting themselves at risk, they're putting others at risk as well.

And by getting drunk, they make themselves more vulnerable to people would would take advantage of them, such as rapists.

In addition to those laws, bearing false witness would be a crime as well, punishable by whatever is at stake in the trial. For example, if someone falsely accused someone of murder, and it was found out, then the false accuser would be executed.

So, let's apply that to Christine and her situation.

Christine made the accusation that a man had sexually assaulted her while she was drunk, or at a party where drinking was involved, and most likely there were people who were drunk.

First of all, she should have never put herself in such a position to begin with. Had the party actually happened, she should have been flogged for being drunk, and had she actually been assaulted, the rapist should have been executed.

However, since the evidence points to the party having never happened (iirc), since she bore false witness accusing someone of raping her, she should be tried, and if found guilty, executed for capital perjury, to put away such evil from our society.

 

[Stripe]

And before anyone starts wailing about how heartless Christians are, the point is: She would never have made the false accusations if she had known that justice was on the other end.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk