Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's wrong with this guy?

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 5:56:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not only did he turn down no-strings-attached sex with a beautiful 25-year-old girl, he actually reported her and now she is up in court on a charge of sexual assault.

http://www.metro.co.uk...

What the hell is wrong with him?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 6:43:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Presumably he is just a homosexual rather than their being anything wrong with him. I believe it is a stereotype with some statistical basis that a large proportion of male air stewards are gay.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 12:20:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why does crap like this even get to court?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 12:32:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 12:20:47 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why does crap like this even get to court?

I know., what a waste of time and money.

I bet stewardesses get touched up by male passengers all the time.

Plus, a man groping up a woman is very different from a woman feeling up a man.

Even if he were a homosexual, as Feverish speculated, surely he wouldn't mind too much if a girl fondled him a bit?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 1:08:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 12:32:58 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 9/15/2011 12:20:47 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why does crap like this even get to court?

I know., what a waste of time and money.

I bet stewardesses get touched up by male passengers all the time.

Plus, a man groping up a woman is very different from a woman feeling up a man.

Even if he were a homosexual, as Feverish speculated, surely he wouldn't mind too much if a girl fondled him a bit?

Regardless of gender or sexuality if you get touched and you don't like it defend yourself. If you can't then complain to someone stronger. Sort it out there and then. Simples!
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 1:27:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 1:08:31 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/15/2011 12:32:58 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 9/15/2011 12:20:47 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why does crap like this even get to court?

I know., what a waste of time and money.

I bet stewardesses get touched up by male passengers all the time.

Plus, a man groping up a woman is very different from a woman feeling up a man.

Even if he were a homosexual, as Feverish speculated, surely he wouldn't mind too much if a girl fondled him a bit?

Regardless of gender or sexuality if you get touched and you don't like it defend yourself. If you can't then complain to someone stronger. Sort it out there and then. Simples!

I don't think our friends in America will get the "simples" reference so I am posting this clip to explain.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:05:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Are people serious that this isn't a criminal offense? If the genders were switched, surely you would think the male is a s!ck bastard.

Double standards.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:14:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:05:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are people serious that this isn't a criminal offense? If the genders were switched, surely you would think the male is a s!ck bastard.

Double standards.

This.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:22:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 5:56:48 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Not only did he turn down no-strings-attached sex with a beautiful 25-year-old girl, he actually reported her and now she is up in court on a charge of sexual assault.

http://www.metro.co.uk...

What the hell is wrong with him?

Yes, because no one in their right might would turn down unprotected sex with a drunken stranger in an aircraft. I'm sensing some seriously juvenile logic in the OP's post. What are you, 16?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:05:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are people serious that this isn't a criminal offense? If the genders were switched, surely you would think the male is a s!ck bastard.

Double standards.

Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:37:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:05:36 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Are people serious that this isn't a criminal offense? If the genders were switched, surely you would think the male is a s!ck bastard.

Double standards.

Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).

A child is defenseless and innocent. The logic does not really carry.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:44:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).

The issue isn't whether or not there are differences, the issue is whether or not there are relevant differences. What is the relevant difference in this case?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:51:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
A sloppy drunk is really not very attractive, and i cannot imagine being that hard up where i would find someone in that state desirable.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 2:51:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:44:49 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).

The issue isn't whether or not there are differences, the issue is whether or not there are relevant differences. What is the relevant difference in this case?

Ability to enforce demands. I don't know what the size of the guy she demanded sex from, but if she demanded it from me, I can say "no" and I can enforce (through my own physical abilities) that decision. In cases of men targeting women, it is quite common the case where the man is larger, and so the woman feels that she is unable to say "no" or defend that decision (so they sometimes just give in).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 3:00:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:51:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:44:49 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).

The issue isn't whether or not there are differences, the issue is whether or not there are relevant differences. What is the relevant difference in this case?

Ability to enforce demands. I don't know what the size of the guy she demanded sex from, but if she demanded it from me, I can say "no" and I can enforce (through my own physical abilities) that decision. In cases of men targeting women, it is quite common the case where the man is larger, and so the woman feels that she is unable to say "no" or defend that decision (so they sometimes just give in).

Once you start hitting the person, its sexual assault and plain assault. If the person makes threats of physical force, its battery and likely some other criminal offense.

If the person keeps makes remarks, but does not use any threats of coercion to back it up, its sexual harassment. A female is just as capable as saying no as any man is. In fact, if were going to use your logic, its even easier for a female to do it, since society will understand. However, it is more difficult for a man to do it, since we get the above comments when he turns down the offer.

Also, lets note that chick also groped that man as well. Surely there is no relevant differences between a man groping a woman and a woman groping a man.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 3:03:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 2:51:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:44:49 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).

The issue isn't whether or not there are differences, the issue is whether or not there are relevant differences. What is the relevant difference in this case?

Ability to enforce demands. I don't know what the size of the guy she demanded sex from, but if she demanded it from me, I can say "no" and I can enforce (through my own physical abilities) that decision. In cases of men targeting women, it is quite common the case where the man is larger, and so the woman feels that she is unable to say "no" or defend that decision (so they sometimes just give in).

Maybe the double standard argument doesn't work, but all the same, the logic here is juvenile because only teenagers would do what the posters here expected the man to do. Teenagers have difficulty connecting action to consequence (excluding myself) so I would expect this kind of question from a teenager. What kind of responsible and self confident adult would be so desperate as to have unprotected sex with a drunk stranger while on a flight, working at his job? If sex were really that worth it, human beings would be extremely manipulable creatures.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 3:04:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 9:28:52 AM, Rockylightning wrote:
Props to word choice:

"Demanded" sex.

You think that was good? I like the title - "Virgin passenger...."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 3:00:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:51:59 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:44:49 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 9/15/2011 2:27:52 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Yep, men and women are different, therefore it is okay for there to be double standards. Just like I have double standards on a 4 year old hitting a 24 year old in the face vs a 24 year old hitting a 4 year old in the face (because kids and adults are different).

The issue isn't whether or not there are differences, the issue is whether or not there are relevant differences. What is the relevant difference in this case?

Ability to enforce demands. I don't know what the size of the guy she demanded sex from, but if she demanded it from me, I can say "no" and I can enforce (through my own physical abilities) that decision. In cases of men targeting women, it is quite common the case where the man is larger, and so the woman feels that she is unable to say "no" or defend that decision (so they sometimes just give in).

Once you start hitting the person, its sexual assault and plain assault. If the person makes threats of physical force, its battery and likely some other criminal offense.

If the person keeps makes remarks, but does not use any threats of coercion to back it up, its sexual harassment. A female is just as capable as saying no as any man is. In fact, if were going to use your logic, its even easier for a female to do it, since society will understand. However, it is more difficult for a man to do it, since we get the above comments when he turns down the offer.

Also, lets note that chick also groped that man as well. Surely there is no relevant differences between a man groping a woman and a woman groping a man.

We should pause and note that I didn't say she should be off scotch free (is that the type of whisky she was drinking?). I was merely arguing that double standards should exist.

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 3:35:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What kind of responsible and self confident adult would be so desperate as to have unprotected sex with a drunk stranger while on a flight
Do we know for a fact that no condoms were available?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 4:34:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.

So women should get a lesser punishment for threatening murder? They are, after all, "less capable".
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 4:48:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.

This is a false generalization. Not all women are weak, not all men are strong. Biology works on principle not law. Therefore, to model law through the indefinite principles of biological predilection is an act of injustice to the victims of crimes in which such laws may affect.

It is this clause that renders your idea of women in general being weak to be significantly unfeasible and unusable in law. Men and Women must both face equal, fair, and identical judgement on crime. Gender discrimination can not be rested and rectified on unstable and highly inconstant principles of human biology. (ex. there are women with too much testosterone, and male reproductive organs, vice versa) Ore_Ele, I agree with you often, but I honestly think you're very wrong on this one.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 4:48:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 5:56:48 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Not only did he turn down no-strings-attached sex with a beautiful 25-year-old girl, he actually reported her and now she is up in court on a charge of sexual assault.

http://www.metro.co.uk...

What the hell is wrong with him?

Um, he has a moral compass and knows it is wrong to take advantage of someone who's mental faculties are impaired. Or so you might understand it better, You are not to try to have sex with retarded girls simply because you may have an opportunity.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 5:22:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 4:48:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.

This is a false generalization. Not all women are weak, not all men are strong. Biology works on principle not law. Therefore, to model law through the indefinite principles of biological predilection is an act of injustice to the victims of crimes in which such laws may affect.

Which is why it should be done on a case by case basis. Obviously person [1] would also be treated differently than person [2].

[1] http://www.google.com...

[2] http://www.google.com...


It is this clause that renders your idea of women in general being weak to be significantly unfeasible and unusable in law. Men and Women must both face equal, fair, and identical judgement on crime. Gender discrimination can not be rested and rectified on unstable and highly inconstant principles of human biology. (ex. there are women with too much testosterone, and male reproductive organs, vice versa) Ore_Ele, I agree with you often, but I honestly think you're very wrong on this one.

There is a reason I mentioned that it also depends on what the victim was built like, because there is the pausability that he is smaller than the woman.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 7:24:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.

It's not threatening to kill though. It's specifically sexual harassment. If a capable man said "I'm going to beat you senseless" vs. an incapable man saying 'I'm going to beat you senseless" it would be different. Of course based on whether the person had a weapon it would be different.

However, sexual harassment isn't threatening someone. As I stated in my analysis, there are many factors that can determine the basis of whether he or she will "give in" or not.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 7:37:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 7:24:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.

It's not threatening to kill though. It's specifically sexual harassment. If a capable man said "I'm going to beat you senseless" vs. an incapable man saying 'I'm going to beat you senseless" it would be different. Of course based on whether the person had a weapon it would be different.

However, sexual harassment isn't threatening someone. As I stated in my analysis, there are many factors that can determine the basis of whether he or she will "give in" or not.

The demand for sex is an indirect threat. It is threatening that if you say no, I will force you to. For example, if I pull out a gun and say "give me all your money," although it is not directly said, I basically threatening you if you refuse. Likewise if this guy walks up to you [1] and says the same thing, it is logical to assume that he will initiate force should you resist.

Please remember that from the very beginning, I already conceded the actual groping.

[1] http://www.google.com...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 9:04:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 7:37:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 7:24:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 4:04:14 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:17:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/15/2011 3:05:13 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:

There is no relevent difference between the physical grabbing (unless she has dagger fingernails, then add attempted murder), however, because a man is more likely to be able to force himself upon a women, he has an intimidation factor, which can influence a women that wants to say "no" to say "okay" in fear that if she doesn't more harm may come to her.

That means the two cases should be treated differently, both should face legal issues, but not identical legal issues.

I tend to disagree, as my analysis above stated above earlier. But even if your analysis was correct, would you treat this situation in other situations as well? For example, differences in confidence/assertion, differences in strength? That's an unbalances way to view the law. To think you should receive a greater punishment just because you have abs.

Yes, just like if you threaten to kill someone while holding a gun vs not being armed at all should be treated different. A person's ability to carry out a threat or force a demand should be concidered in the punishment.

It's not threatening to kill though. It's specifically sexual harassment. If a capable man said "I'm going to beat you senseless" vs. an incapable man saying 'I'm going to beat you senseless" it would be different. Of course based on whether the person had a weapon it would be different.

However, sexual harassment isn't threatening someone. As I stated in my analysis, there are many factors that can determine the basis of whether he or she will "give in" or not.

The demand for sex is an indirect threat. It is threatening that if you say no, I will force you to. For example, if I pull out a gun and say "give me all your money," although it is not directly said, I basically threatening you if you refuse. Likewise if this guy walks up to you [1] and says the same thing, it is logical to assume that he will initiate force should you resist.

Please remember that from the very beginning, I already conceded the actual groping.

[1] http://www.google.com...

It depends on the context. If the man is obviously going to force himself on you to obtain it, then its a form of battery. If the man is homeless on the street and is asking you for money and constantly harrassing you to give money, then its unlikely that he is going to use force.

Sexual harrasment involves continuous repeats of asking the same question.
If the person says no the first time, and the person is not attacked, its unlikely that he or she will attack you, otherwise he/she would have done it a long time ago.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...