KEEP SAFE: 'Make rape legal' group plan events in Shambles Square & worldwide

[EalingBlue2]

It's you saying "you're just saying rich white males are the victims of the rapes" when nobody has said that, I do understand as a father and husband the thought of something like that happening will hit you deep, I wonder if you had a son right now coming home drunk bringing birds back you would have another dreaded thought that could also have the same emotional impact?

There really is no fair answer to it that I can see, if we find a better way to get justice for all then I'm all for it, plus I was more talking about the grey area when drink and drugs are involved and they simply cant remember the next day, they do a lot of drink and recreational drugs these days. I don't get how you can argue with that, anything else would be case by case and not really what I was driving at.

Anyway I respect your opinions and can see why you think that way, there's no need to pigeonhole each other like tends to happen sometimes.

Very fair point in the last paragraph and I respect that!

 

[Damocles]

Course it would suck but I would rather do 50 years in jail falsely accused than see a man who raped my daughter walk free because the law makes it so impossible to prosecute and watch what it did to her life.

This is a terrible thing to say.

To deny somebody their freedom is the worst punishment that our society can hand out to somebody. You are ok with making this choice because you've personalised it and made the other person guilty even though last time we had a discussion you were adamant that legally defined terms are the only way to define actions, and that legally makes them not guilty.

I'd rather have a thousand murderers walk free than put a single innocent person behind bars, because that is the entire point of the justice system philosophically and directly.

 

[TCIB]

A pro rape group...pro...rape!

I know i am reading this but i am struggling to process this. Pro rape, wtf, i hope they all get stabbed and left to die with everyone ignoring them in the gutter.

 

[Damocles]

A pro rape group...pro...rape!

I know i am reading this but i am struggling to process this. Pro rape, wtf, i hope they all get stabbed and left to die with everyone ignoring them in the gutter.

It's because they aren't a pro-rape group.

One thing I've learnt from the internet is that if something sounds too outrageous to be true then it almost certainly is.

 

[EalingBlue2]

This is a terrible thing to say.

To deny somebody their freedom is the worst punishment that our society can hand out to somebody. You are ok with making this choice because you've personalised it and made the other person guilty even though last time we had a discussion you were adamant that legally defined terms are the only way to define actions, and that legally makes them not guilty.

I'd rather have a thousand murderers walk free than put a single innocent person behind bars, because that is the entire point of the justice system philosophically and directly.

I made a comment that I would rather serve time than deal with a horrific crime happening to my daughter and I cannot understand how any parent of a daughter could feel any different to be honest . You can intellectualise how you like about how you feel for your kids but nature shows many animals will give their lives to protect their kids.
I also can't agree on your other point either a 1000 murderers walking free could mean another 1000 people murdered and o would rather 1 innocent person locked up that 1000 people get murdered. There is no freedom for a rape or abuse victim, like there is no comeback for a murder victim and we just need to get the best legal and criminal system possible to ensure that the right verdict happens on the highest % possible of times, that miscarriages are addressed and that we get the best system possible. The legal system is there to protect society and it should maintain that role not be there to ensure that no innocent is ever locked up as the only way to do that would be to punish no crime.

Your point on the justice system is utterly wrong , it's purpose is to publicly punish, to protect society and government and to ensure where possible a fair verdict, it is as much to ensure the right people get locked up in a fair way the people trust as it is to protect the innocent from being locked up. It isn't there to ensure no one innocent is ever locked up or to ensure every criminal is locked up both are impossible extremities and the whole system constantly changes to try and get the right balance. I suspect that 99% of people who set laws are far more concerned about protecting society and cutting crime, locking up criminals than protecting the innocent - though not necessarily to the right reasons.

Having seen what abuse, sexual assault and murder can do to people I wouldn't argue that having freedom taken away is worse than being victim to those things. From them there is no comeback or escape even in your dreams for many people.

Would you not do prison for your kids? Would you not protect them with your life? To say me believing that is a terrible thing is something I can't comprehend it seems almost sociopathic on its logical intellectualism of a situation that is neither logical or academic. I don't believe that is who you are and if you are a parent I don't believe for one second in protecting your kids you would be any different. I also don't believe that you seriously believe that being locked up is worse than what for example Keith Bennetts mother went through.

It is all about the law and I accept the Le has to favour the criminal as it is too open to abuse, I accept the benefit of the doubt has to be with the defendant and the burden of proof with the prosecution. But that does not mean I don't think a lot should be continue to be done to protect women from rape and make it possible to have a better process to determine guilt and catch rapists and child abusers.

 

[EalingBlue2]

It's because they aren't a pro-rape group.

One thing I've learnt from the internet is that if something sounds too outrageous to be true then it almost certainly is.

By our legal definition today they want what is determined as rape changed to make it non criminal so it could occur so they are pro some rape. They just wouldn't define that as rape so they would say they aren't pro rape as it wouldn't be rape anymore. I choose to define what they are by our legal definition of rape not theirs.

 

[Damocles]

I made a comment that I would rather serve time than deal with a horrific crime happening to my daughter and I cannot understand how any parent of a daughter could feel any different to be honest . You can intellectualise how you like about how you feel for your kids but nature shows many animals will give their lives to protect their kids.

Interesting how you attempt to use a naturalistic primal argument about this. Now go and use a naturalistic primal argument about rape, and for the same reasons you disagree with that, I disagree with this.

By our legal definition today they want what is determined as rape changed to make it non criminal so it could occur so they are pro some rape.

And by our dictionary definition, that doesn't make them pro-rape. This is an absolutely ridiculous thing, you cannot randomly redefine the meaning of words to support your arguments; that's literally a tenet of fascism

 

[Damocles]

it's purpose is to publicly punish, to protect society and government and to ensure where possible a fair verdict, it is as much to ensure the right people get locked up in a fair way the people trust as it is to protect the innocent from being locked up. It isn't there to ensure no one innocent is ever locked up

Yes it is. In fact, again, that is literally the definition of a justice system. And again, what you're describing is literally fascism - that we lock up pretty much anybody and if the innocent get locked up then shit out of luck for them.

You understand this yes? That you've gone so far across the liberal spectrum that you've ended up at authoritarianism?

 

[EalingBlue2]

Interesting how you attempt to use a naturalistic primal argument about this. Now go and use a naturalistic primal argument about rape, and for the same reasons you disagree with that, I disagree with this.



And by our dictionary definition, that doesn't make them pro-rape. This is an absolutely ridiculous thing, you cannot randomly redefine the meaning of words to support your arguments; that's literally a tenet of fascism

So by our dictionary definition ISIS aren't criminals as they don't see killing infidels as a crime - ok then - if that's how you see it I won't argue.

I am not saying that we live in a world entirely robotic and logic based ) which you seem to ) or entirely primeval like Roosh would any I am saying our world is neither so base or so logical it is a balance of grey and that is humanity.

 

[Newman Noggs]

So by our dictionary definition ISIS aren't criminals as they don't see killing infidels as a crime - ok then - if that's how you see it I won't argue.

I am not saying that we live in a world entirely robotic and logic based ) which you seem to ) or entirely primeval like Roosh would any I am saying our world is neither so base or so logical it is a balance of grey and that is humanity.

You are clearly not rational, for whatever reason, when the subject of rape comes up. Damocles is absolutely right. Guilty until proven innocent is the cornerstone of our legal system and to undermine it on the basis of extremist (and misandrist) views like yours would be the road to Hell. You keep talking about your daughter as if a) those of us making a counter argument don't have mothers, wives, sisters and other loved women to be concerned about and b) my sons are less important than your daughter and should be willing to do 50 innocent years in jail to keep her safe. The fact that you clearly feel like that shows how far down the road you have gone and there is little point arguing with you.

 

[EalingBlue2]

You are clearly not rational, for whatever reason, when the subject of rape comes up. Damocles is absolutely right. Guilty until proven innocent is the cornerstone of our legal system and to undermine it on the basis of extremist (and misandrist) views like yours would be the road to Hell. You keep talking about your daughter as if a) those of us making a counter argument don't have mothers, wives, sisters and other loved women to be concerned about and b) my sons are less important than your daughter and should be willing to do 50 innocent years in jail to keep her safe. The fact that you clearly feel like that shows how far down the road you have gone and there is little point arguing with you.

I don't disagree for a second that innocent until proven guilty is important and a cornerstone and I don't see as I have said many times any need to change the balance of our system. I have merely said u would exchange my freedom in this scenario not suggested any law change or change to our justice system at all.

My simple point on the 50 years was that I think the legal position is about right today, I think that rape is highly under convicted but there are no credible ways to change that at the moment . If there is a tiny risk in today's system that I could be locked up innocently I accept that and were it a personal trade off on my freedom I'd take it. My stance is exactly the same as it was on cologne, police process, legal process, guilty verdict = punishment not guilty = freedom. So extremist it is what we have today.

Damocles said justice was just about protecting the innocent at all costs and wild rather set 1000 guilty people free than risk one innocent being locked up. If that was applied to terrorists how many tens of thousands lives would we risk being killed your sons my daughters whoever.

Justice is about protecting society, protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty and finding the right balance and I accept in the real world that there is a trade off and be that on terrorism, rape and that the balance will always be in favour of the accused. Don't call for anything different.

My only extremist view is to think rape is a bigger problem in our society than false accusations of rape and if you think that is extremist then fair enough.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Yes it is. In fact, again, that is literally the definition of a justice system. And again, what you're describing is literally fascism - that we lock up pretty much anybody and if the innocent get locked up then shit out of luck for them.

You understand this yes? That you've gone so far across the liberal spectrum that you've ended up at authoritarianism?

The literal definition of justice is the quality of being fair and reasonable - that applies to the accused, the victim, and society. Any guilty man set free or innocent man locked up is a failure of justice and justice has to find the right line. Extremism is taking either side of this equation to the extreme either locking people up who are innocent or setting free too many who are guilty. The justice system is there to try and get the right balance and ensure as many fair and correct verdicts as possible. I hate to see any innocent person locked up, but I also hate to see guilty people go free and re offend or cause futher pain. Both are wrong and it is not fascist to want innocent people free and guilty people locked up.

 

[EalingBlue2]

You are clearly not rational, for whatever reason, when the subject of rape comes up. Damocles is absolutely right. Guilty until proven innocent is the cornerstone of our legal system and to undermine it on the basis of extremist (and misandrist) views like yours would be the road to Hell. You keep talking about your daughter as if a) those of us making a counter argument don't have mothers, wives, sisters and other loved women to be concerned about and b) my sons are less important than your daughter and should be willing to do 50 innocent years in jail to keep her safe. The fact that you clearly feel like that shows how far down the road you have gone and there is little point arguing with you.

You have quoted a post nothing to do with your reply so it's a random series of statements not an argument

 

[mancity dan]

Glad the Manchester one has been called off. Public pressure has obviously got to them.

 

[SWP's back]

By our legal definition today they want what is determined as rape changed to make it non criminal so it could occur so they are pro some rape. They just wouldn't define that as rape so they would say they aren't pro rape as it wouldn't be rape anymore. I choose to define what they are by our legal definition of rape not theirs.

What total unmitigated bollocks.

I also note that when Damocles actually put the full quotes in speaking about intoxication, rather than admitting you were wrong/lying, you simply ignored his post.

 

[SWP's back]

You are clearly not rational, for whatever reason, when the subject of rape comes up. Damocles is absolutely right. Guilty until proven innocent is the cornerstone of our legal system and to undermine it on the basis of extremist (and misandrist) views like yours would be the road to Hell. You keep talking about your daughter as if a) those of us making a counter argument don't have mothers, wives, sisters and other loved women to be concerned about and b) my sons are less important than your daughter and should be willing to do 50 innocent years in jail to keep her safe. The fact that you clearly feel like that shows how far down the road you have gone and there is little point arguing with you.

Not only is he not rational. He's clueless. He thinks he's liberal but he has gone so far left, he's now almost fascist. He'd rather an innocent person was locked up for 50 years than a potential guilty person get away with something.

He's sensationalised the thread, so much so that fucking idiots keep posting that the world has gone to fuck rather than actually understanding what the group's point is. That being that most episodes of sex tonight and tomorrow night in Manchester will technically be rape as a drunk woman is not able to consent, yet a drunk man should know better.

Given the law as it is there, I don't think I know a single bloke from my generation that could ever say they are not a rapist. And that surely can't be right. As quoted before, a drunk woman can't be held responsible for her actions if they sleep with someone, yet the law would hold the same woman responsible for driving when drunk.

 

[EalingBlue2]

What total unmitigated bollocks.

I also note that when Damocles actually put the full quotes in speaking about intoxication, rather than admitting you were wrong/lying, you simply ignored his post.

Damocles posted one comment made in a discussion about this, not the policy not hundreds of other comments.

Are you suggesting their idea is based on time or intoxication - these have nothing to do with it, what you are commenting on is one scenario, one comment in one conversation . If you and damo want to be literal you would realise that an intoxicated woman who consents to leave a nightclub with a man can currently under the law be raped so even in your narrow definition they are still calling for this kind of rape to be a non crime( IE legal) so even if you want to twist to your small comment definition the point still stands.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Not only is he not rational. He's clueless. He thinks he's liberal but he has gone so far left, he's now almost fascist. He'd rather an innocent person was locked up for 50 years than a potential guilty person get away with something.

He's sensationalised the thread, so much so that fucking idiots keep posting that the world has gone to fuck rather than actually understanding what the group's point is. That being that most episodes of sex tonight and tomorrow night in Manchester will technically be rape as a drunk woman is not able to consent, yet a drunk man should know better.

Given the law as it is there, I don't think I know a single bloke from my generation that could ever say they are not a rapist. And that surely can't be right. As quoted before, a drunk woman can't be held responsible for her actions if they sleep with someone, yet the law would hold the same woman responsible for driving when drunk.

So if what you say is true why is every man on this thread not in jail? Why because we aren't rapists and you are talking nonsense

 

[EalingBlue2]

Not only is he not rational. He's clueless. He thinks he's liberal but he has gone so far left, he's now almost fascist. He'd rather an innocent person was locked up for 50 years than a potential guilty person get away with something.

He's sensationalised the thread, so much so that fucking idiots keep posting that the world has gone to fuck rather than actually understanding what the group's point is. That being that most episodes of sex tonight and tomorrow night in Manchester will technically be rape as a drunk woman is not able to consent, yet a drunk man should know better.

Given the law as it is there, I don't think I know a single bloke from my generation that could ever say they are not a rapist. And that surely can't be right. As quoted before, a drunk woman can't be held responsible for her actions if they sleep with someone, yet the law would hold the same woman responsible for driving when drunk.

Go and read some of their stuff all this is about 1% of their stuff , the group is about making men men and women women, it has hard views on far more than just this and suggests the Law defining many things for men and women. This whole thing has been stupidly sensationalist and given this rump attention they don't merit.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Not only is he not rational. He's clueless. He thinks he's liberal but he has gone so far left, he's now almost fascist. He'd rather an innocent person was locked up for 50 years than a potential guilty person get away with something.

He's sensationalised the thread, so much so that fucking idiots keep posting that the world has gone to fuck rather than actually understanding what the group's point is. That being that most episodes of sex tonight and tomorrow night in Manchester will technically be rape as a drunk woman is not able to consent, yet a drunk man should know better.

Given the law as it is there, I don't think I know a single bloke from my generation that could ever say they are not a rapist. And that surely can't be right. As quoted before, a drunk woman can't be held responsible for her actions if they sleep with someone, yet the law would hold the same woman responsible for driving when drunk.

I am certainly not that left wing, I don't think I am particularly liberal to be honest I don't see the world in black and white it is all a shade of grey.

I said I would rather do 50 years myself than see my daughters life ruined by a serious sexual assault - learn to read.

I would also rather 1 innocent man locked up for terrorism than a thousand guilty terrorists set free . What a fascist.

Your view is you are honest enough to admit it is you don't care how many rapists or criminals walk free as long as your chance of ever suffering a miscarriage of justice is minimised.

But sadly in our society there are victims when the guilty go free as there are when the innocent are locked up and maybe jusy maybe that's the real world

But make stuff up about what others think as that is the only way you will ever be able to justify your victim mentality