http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48872000/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

If this story is even halfway true, there are some seriously messed up people in this town if they blame the 11 year old.

Sure, she wore makeup and wasn't tied up, can't be rape can it? FFS, these are the sorts of people who listen to crap about 'legitimate rapes' and nod in agreement. They're morons.

It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Sure, she wore makeup and wasn't tied up, can't be rape can it? FFS, these are the sorts of people who listen to crap about 'legitimate rapes' and nod in agreement. They're morons.

Don't forget, she also looks older than 11, which is also clearly her fault. I agree with your statement about these people being morons if they think any sexual relationship between an adult and child that young is the child's fault. Words can't express my disgust for that kind of person.

The girl was 11 years old.

There are no excuses.

The people who said that she was responsible for her rape should themselves be raped.
Let's see them use that argument afterwards.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:The people who said that she was responsible for her rape should themselves be raped.
Let's see them use that argument afterwards.

Rape is pretty fething horrible. I don't think anyone deserves it, even rapists.

Think they're down on the same level as pedaphiles in prison.

 LoneLictor wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:The people who said that she was responsible for her rape should themselves be raped.
Let's see them use that argument afterwards.

Rape is pretty fething horrible. I don't think anyone deserves it, even rapists.

I concur. Which is why I am so disgusted that they would say that.

There aren't enough vigilantes in the USA.

Also this seems pretty obviously a racial issue.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Sure, she wore makeup and wasn't tied up, can't be rape can it? FFS, these are the sorts of people who listen to crap about 'legitimate rapes' and nod in agreement. They're morons.

Nice.
Thread about the destruction of a child's life... bring in politics. Good work.

This Ms. King may in fact be a democrat. But that possibility doesn't play into your "GOP is Pro Rape! Durr Hurr!" agenda.

Ok my first thoughts, I didnt know TX had a cleveland, I thought Ohio had a Houston.
Now Serious, I just cant fathom anyone saying "Its your fault, you dressed like that" to an adult, let alone a minor. I mean Really people, by that logic its the banks fault for being robbed for having money. Really are we going to start blaming a little girl(11 is still a little girl in my book) who may not have any concept of fault.
IF this girl hears this, and believes it(she is 11 after all) she coudl end up with severe emotional problems.

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Nice.
Thread about the destruction of a child's life... bring in politics. Good work.

Her life hasn't been destroyed as she isn't dead. She has been prevented from living a life in which she wasn't statutorily raped, but her life hasn't been destroyed*.

That being said, it is relevant that certain members of certain parts of the political spectrum seem to distinguish between "legitimate rape" and "illegitimate rape". Saying "ZOMG tragedy, we can't talk about politics!" is basically a failure to appreciate how political and social (because I hate the word "sociopolitical") circumstances affect the manner in which the relevant town has split.

Further, I like how almost everyone (The exception is Shuma, from what I've read.) that is completely disconnected from the situation is passing hard moral judgments regarding the people that are connected to it.



*Also, I know several women that would have your nuts in a sling for alluding to the idea that a rape, or even several rapes, is definitive with respect to their lives.

Yes, I'm passing judgement. Even if she said okay, I'd STILL condemn the rapes and the people who blamed her.

She's ELEVEN YEARS OLD. Even IF it was her choice, it wasn't her choice.

Despite evidence at Eric McGowen's trial that included a confession, DNA evidence, the girl's tearful testimony and a video of her being assaulted, others haven't been swayed.

The only solution.

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, I'm passing judgement. Even if she said okay, I'd STILL condemn the rapes and the people who blamed her.

I'm not talking about the alleged rapists, I'm talking about everyone else in the community. People with greater personal context should be forgiven for leaning on their experience with X when X is convicted of anything as, to them, "anything" is likely an isolated incident regardless of severity.

Granted, I could have been more clear.

I dunno if I agree with you then. When you have a large group of guys gang-rape a prepubescent girl over the course of several months, and you have video evidence of it, a confession, DNA evidence ,and witnesses to it...

I probably shouldn't pass judgement, but I find it hard not to considering the situation.

 dogma wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Nice.
Thread about the destruction of a child's life... bring in politics. Good work.

Her life hasn't been destroyed as she isn't dead. She has been prevented from living a life in which she wasn't statutorily raped, but her life hasn't been destroyed.

That being said, it is relevant that certain members of certain parts of the political spectrum seem to distinguish between "legitimate rape" and "illegitimate rape". Saying "ZOMG tragedy, we can't talk about politics!" is basically a failure to appreciate how political and social (because I hate the word "sociopolitical") circumstances affect the manner in which the relevant town has split.
Ui
Further, I like how almost everyone (The exception is Shuma, from what I've read.) that is completely disconnected from the situation is passing hard moral judgments regarding the people that are connected to it.

I've sat in counciling sessions with people that have had their children abused and it is a really hard shot on the child that has been abused. Even if the child is too young to remember the act, there can be serious psycological repercussions in later life because of what happened, not to mention the effects on the child's family
At the age this child was, it will take a long time, if ever for her to get over what happened to her. I've seen children not much older than three that have been abused, and it is a fairly sickening thing to me, especially since some of the comments in the article are similar to ones I've heard in real life.

dogma wrote:Further, I like how almost everyone (The exception is Shuma, from what I've read.) that is completely disconnected from the situation is passing hard moral judgments regarding the people that are connected to it.

Hey, I didn't judge anyone.

Not cool man, not cool.

Relapse wrote:

I've sat in counciling sessions with people that have had their children abused and it is a really hard shot on the child that has been abused. Even if the child is too young to remember the act, there can be serious psycological repercussions in later life because of what happened, not to mention the effects on the child's family.

I didn't say that there weren't, but to claim that a child's life has been "destroyed" is to idealize what that child's life would have been without cause. I suspect much of what you describe results from the attitude of the parents, who generally (understandably) fumble around with their own expectations and what they think is best for the child.

Edit: To clarify, I'm not insulting parents. All parents want the best for their kids, and rolling with the punches can be difficult.

Relapse wrote:

At the age this child was, it will take a long time, if ever for her to get over what happened to her.

True enough, but its difficult to leverage what might have been when you're discussing what is, and I say this having dated 2 rape victims.

 LoneLictor wrote:

Hey, I didn't judge anyone.

Not cool man, not cool.

I said "based on what I read". I only skimmed the thread, so don't take offense.

dogma wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:
Hey, I didn't judge anyone.

Not cool man, not cool.

I said "based on what I read". I only skimmed the thread, so don't take offense.

You think it's fine to skin a thread and then judge everyone involved?

Alright fine. I'm going to skim your post, assume that you said something about supporting Hitler, and then I'll judge you for it.

How does it feel to be judged, huh? How does it feel? Yeah, that's right. I'm judging you.

How does it feel to be judged, huh? How does it feel? Yeah, that's right. I'm judging you.

Are you excuting him to Judge Lonelictor? With helmet on or off?

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Hrrrrm, yeah, just like all them kids who's relatives abuse them over a period of years and years. and they don't tell anyone about it; surely that MUST mean that they were asking for it. It couldn't be because they're terrified of reprisals, or because they don't feel they have anyone to turn to, no, it obviously just means they're a slut and it's their own fault

The girl is eleven years old. I don't care if she was walking around naked wearing a sandwich board with "me service you cheap, only five dolla" on, anyone who touches her is a rapist, because she is incapable of giving informed consent. That a place can be so full of backwards hill-people that there's any debate whatsoever over that point of fact makes me physically sick; seriously, just reading the cretinous mumblings of these web-toed, inbred, child-molester-loving hicks gave me the boke for a good five minutes, I had to make a cup of tea to settle my stomach.

Despicable.

EDIT: And yes, I am judging them, all of them; the rapists and the moronic townspeople who support them, because this isn't some wishy-washy "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" story, an eleven year old girl was raped, repeatedly, by multiple people. There is no ethical context in which that is ok.

Hrrrrm, yeah, just like all them kids who's relatives abuse them over a period of years and years. and they don't tell anyone about it; surely that MUST mean that they were asking for it. It couldn't be because they're terrified of reprisals, or because they don't feel they have anyone to turn to, no, it obviously just means they're a slut and it's their own fault

I was commenting on the quality of the report and how it lambasts half a town while leaving critical facts out so that lazy people can whine about rapists because it's easy to shout at a computer screen.

It's also easy to hate rapists...
You know because they're rapists...

@Dogma, I think I catch your meaning if you're saying that parents expect that their children would have been world beaters, but being raped took that from them. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.
One of the best things, in most cases that I've seen or heard of is for the parents to seek counciling for themselves as well as their child and to talk with others who have gone through similar circumstances.
The child can possibly have a number of issues that will need to be dealt with that can come out immediatly or even years later, even with counciling such as anger, lack of self worth, promiscuousness, suicidal tendencies, the list goes on.
I had a good chance to study all of this since one of my daughters was attacked when she was very young. A son of aa at the time family friend lured her away from a group she was with and attempted a sexual assault. Fortunatly my wife noticed she was missing and found her before anything beyond groping and removal of her panties happened.
Over the next year, we went to court listening to motions and pleas before the actual trial happened and during the entire time, his family denied anything happened.
He might have gotten away with it, but someone came forward to tell me about another little girl this guy had cultivated and gone after. I went to talk to her father and he was reluctant to come forward. I did manage to get him to talk to the officer in charge of my daughter's case, and a couple of weeks later he decided to join in the complaint.
My daughter's attacker was found guilty, and at that point his mother changed from saying he was innocent and that we were liars to saying it was the state's fault and the fault of everyone that lived around her that her son didn't get the help he needed.
In the meantime, we were dealing with anger outbursts from our daughter as well as other emotional issues from her.
It was definitly pretty traumatic all around.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Yodhrin,

Well said.

The girl is eleven years old. I don't care if she was walking around naked wearing a sandwich board with "me service you cheap, only five dolla" on, anyone who touches her is a rapist, because she is incapable of giving informed consent.

No one disagrees with this.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Hrrrrm, yeah, just like all them kids who's relatives abuse them over a period of years and years. and they don't tell anyone about it; surely that MUST mean that they were asking for it. It couldn't be because they're terrified of reprisals, or because they don't feel they have anyone to turn to, no, it obviously just means they're a slut and it's their own fault :

EDIT: And yes, I am judging them, all of them; the rapists and the moronic townspeople who support them, because this isn't some wishy-washy "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" story, an eleven year old girl was raped, repeatedly, by multiple people. There is no ethical context in which that is ok.

There is such a concept as innocent until proven guilty, and the article seems incomplete, leaving several important questions unanswered. Such as, how on Earth did this happen several times over a span of months? The townspeople may all be horrible monsters, or possibly they may have some reason (good or bad) to be suspicious of the process and the authorities there. It's very easy to freak out and condemn them all, but there does remain a small chance that there's more to the story.

 purplefood wrote:
It's also easy to hate rapists...
You know because they're rapists...

Yep. It's also easy to be annoyed when people shout at me like I'm defending rapists when I'm questioning the quality of a report exploiting peoples mindless and childlike hatred of rapists to get free hits on their website.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It's also easy to hate rapists...
You know because they're rapists...

Yep. It's also easy to be annoyed when people shout at me like I'm defending rapists when I'm questioning the quality of a report exploiting peoples mindless and childlike hatred of rapists to get free hits on their website.

Well i don't think anyone seriously think you're defending the rapists...
That would be stupid...
The article isn't a great one but it's not exactly uncommon for a story to be written before more facts present themselves...

 purplefood wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It's also easy to hate rapists...
You know because they're rapists...

Yep. It's also easy to be annoyed when people shout at me like I'm defending rapists when I'm questioning the quality of a report exploiting peoples mindless and childlike hatred of rapists to get free hits on their website.

Well i don't think anyone seriously think you're defending the rapists...
That would be stupid...
The article isn't a great one but it's not exactly uncommon for a story to be written before more facts present themselves...

The facts have been available for some time. This all happened 2 years ago.

Jihadin wrote:Think they're down on the same level as pedaphiles in prison.

Not even close. Depending on the prison, rapists find themselves anywhere from being harassed to left alone.

Child molesters, on the other hand, have a much harder time and are often required to be placed in 24-hour protective custody, because if word gets out (and it will get out) that you sexually assaulted a child, then not only will most convicts be out for your blood, but any convict that has the chance to feth you up and doesn't will also become a target. The mentality is generally "If you don't beat 'em (to death), join 'em".

That being said; I'm undecided about whether or not I have a problem with that mentality.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 purplefood wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
It's also easy to hate rapists...
You know because they're rapists...

Yep. It's also easy to be annoyed when people shout at me like I'm defending rapists when I'm questioning the quality of a report exploiting peoples mindless and childlike hatred of rapists to get free hits on their website.

Well i don't think anyone seriously think you're defending the rapists...
That would be stupid...
The article isn't a great one but it's not exactly uncommon for a story to be written before more facts present themselves...

The facts have been available for some time. This all happened 2 years ago.

Well then i need to read more carefully after a few drinks and i agree with you concerning the article...

 Mannahnin wrote:

The girl is eleven years old. I don't care if she was walking around naked wearing a sandwich board with "me service you cheap, only five dolla" on, anyone who touches her is a rapist, because she is incapable of giving informed consent.

No one disagrees with this.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Hrrrrm, yeah, just like all them kids who's relatives abuse them over a period of years and years. and they don't tell anyone about it; surely that MUST mean that they were asking for it. It couldn't be because they're terrified of reprisals, or because they don't feel they have anyone to turn to, no, it obviously just means they're a slut and it's their own fault :

EDIT: And yes, I am judging them, all of them; the rapists and the moronic townspeople who support them, because this isn't some wishy-washy "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" story, an eleven year old girl was raped, repeatedly, by multiple people. There is no ethical context in which that is ok.

There is such a concept as innocent until proven guilty, and the article seems incomplete, leaving several important questions unanswered. Such as, how on Earth did this happen several times over a span of months? The townspeople may all be horrible monsters, or possibly they may have some reason (good or bad) to be suspicious of the process and the authorities there. It's very easy to freak out and condemn them all, but there does remain a small chance that there's more to the story.

There are a number of things that come to my mind how this could have happened, the most promonent thought is that the girl was being threatened by her assailants. In these kind of circumstances, the attackers can have an all powerful aspect to the victem, who is convinced that no one can help them. I've had the chance to meet several parents whose children were being abused by relatives or family friends over lengthy periods of time before discovery. These kind of people are good at controling the victim and covering their tracks to the point that the abuse can go on for years and even extend to siblings of the victim.
Perhaps the girl was convinced by her attackers that what was happening wasn't wrong and was even a good thing, but it had to be kept a secret. When this happens, she feels like she's part of something that makes her important and she doesn't want to lose it.
There are really quite a number of ways something like this can be kept from parents. The big misconception of pedophiles is that they are mostly guys in overcoats lurking around parks and schools. The exact opposite is true. They usually turn out to be trusted friends or relatives of the family or the victim who are suprisingly good at using the victim's help in keeping things secret.

Relapse wrote:
@Dogma, I think I catch your meaning if you're saying that parents expect that their children would have been world beaters, but being raped took that from them. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

Not world beaters, just a different kid; the kid they wanted. One of the things I have most frequently encountered with rape victims (male or female) is that their parents could not cope with the rape in the manner that they did. Lots of "You're gay now." and "You're not my daughter."

Relapse wrote:

One of the best things, in most cases that I've seen or heard of is for the parents to seek counciling for themselves as well as their child and to talk with others who have gone through similar circumstances.

This is one of those the "More important for the parents than the kid." circumstances I think, and have experienced. I recall a friend telling me that her mom's first response was "Its alright baby, we're Catholic." Fill in the blanks*.

*Didn't know the rape involved a choir boy...or maybe did; it was an old family.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
@Dogma, I think I catch your meaning if you're saying that parents expect that their children would have been world beaters, but being raped took that from them. Feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

Not world beaters, just a different kid; the kid they wanted. One of the things I have most frequently encountered with rape victims (male or female) is that their parents could not cope with the rape in the manner that they did. Lots of "You're gay now." and "You're not my daughter."

Relapse wrote:

One of the best things, in most cases that I've seen or heard of is for the parents to seek counciling for themselves as well as their child and to talk with others who have gone through similar circumstances.

This is one of those the "More important for the parents than the kid." circumstances I think, and have experienced. I recall a friend telling me that her mom's first response was "Its alright baby, we're Catholic." Fill in the blanks*.

*Didn't know the rape involved a choir boy...or maybe did; it was an old family.

There is definitely a wide spectrum of emotion to deal with for all concernned in a situation like this. The girl's father I talked with wanted to turn his back on the whole affair. I told him if he did, he could very well be setting the stage for someone else to be attacked because this guy would possibly be let off by the judge. When I first heard about my daughter's attack, it seemed like all the emotion left me, which was just as well, because it allowed me to make decisions and put things in motion that led to this guy being taken away.
My wife did tell me later it was like I was someone else, although to me, I felt the same.

I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

Monster Rain wrote:I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

Well, you see, if she gets pregnant as a result, then it obviously wasn't rape.

/vitriolic sarcasm; I feel gross even making that joke

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Sorry but I can't think of any possible excuses to validate it......

Can tell us?

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Sorry but I can't think of any possible excuses to validate it......

Can tell us?

What is it with you people and the basic inability to tell the difference between a defense of rape and a criticism of yellow journalism? It's as if there has to be exactly two sides, no more no less, to everything or else it doesn't count. If there's anything that time and time again pushes me away from this community it's the total lack of maturity or capacity to handle even simple nuances like "Well that story leaves out a lot of important facts". How does requesting more information about a story have anything to do with defending rape? Hell, the story wasn't even about the rape it was about the missing original suspect and how the reporter wonders whether the towns racial divide is harming the investigation.

But that flew right over your head.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Sorry but I can't think of any possible excuses to validate it......

Can tell us?

What is it with you people and the basic inability to tell the difference between a defense of rape and a criticism of yellow journalism? It's as if there has to be exactly two sides, no more no less, to everything or else it doesn't count.

Is business good for trawling out two year old rape stories so that bored wargamers can get their heckles by proving whose angrier about something they didn't even know existed until now? It must be, because the people in this thread play like a puppet.

Well shuma, incase you can't tell from my post? Im admitting im unable to tell.
Hence I asked if you are willing to tell us what can the other side actually bring to light that can change the situation.

Im not here to judge him, or the validity of MSNBC, Im just curious in what you can come up with.

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Sorry but I can't think of any possible excuses to validate it......

Can tell us?

What is it with you people and the basic inability to tell the difference between a defense of rape and a criticism of yellow journalism? It's as if there has to be exactly two sides, no more no less, to everything or else it doesn't count.

Is business good for trawling out two year old rape stories so that bored wargamers can get their heckles by proving whose angrier about something they didn't even know existed until now? It must be, because the people in this thread play like a puppet.

Well shuma, incase you can't tell from my post? Im admitting im unable to tell.
Hence I asked if you are willing to tell us what can the other side actually bring to light that can change the situation.

Im not here to judge him, or the validity of MSNBC, Im just curious in what you can come up with.

I don't think that's true. I have very clearly stated that I think the report was a cash grab at an easy headline topic, and that the case itself is irrelevant to the story as presented. If they wanted to be informative and give a helpful perspective they wouldn't have given such blatantly clear bias and insinuated that half of a city is sheltering a child rapist. What it seems you, purple food, and monsters rain want are cheap shots to feel strong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

It happened two years ago, the case is ongoing, the report presents a clear bias and insinuates that large portions of a city are hiding a repeated child rapist for racial reasons and it does it without presenting any meaningful information that would serve to give the reader a perspective beyond "black dudes raped a girl, ya'll should be ashamed". It's a gakky article with a clear bias and a very clear intent. There's no rationalizing here, the article exists so that armchair judges can hoot and hollar about something that's over.

It was probably a slow news week.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't think that's true. I have very clearly stated that I think the report was a cash grab at an easy headline topic, and that the case itself is irrelevant to the story as presented. If they wanted to be informative and give a helpful perspective they wouldn't have given such blatantly clear bias and insinuated that half of a city is sheltering a child rapist. What it seems you, purple food, and monsters rain want are cheap shots to feel strong.

I assure you shuma, I have no interest in cheap shotting anything to feel strong about anything.
I dont know the victim, I dont know the accused, I dont know MSNBC, and I don't know you.

Im merely curious on what possibility is there to change the situation, to make the other side more innocent. Because you sound like you can provide some ideas, so I asked.

You might be looking too much into this. I follow a very basic logic shuma.

Wow how in the world does this have a town or community divided? On its face it is just wrong, and immoral in nearly every culture.

Now about this innocent until proven guilty thing, that only applies in a court of law. There is no application of this in the court of public opinion which is what we have here.

Make all the judgements you like, but there is nothing good coming to the people that perpitrate these kinds of acts.

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't think that's true. I have very clearly stated that I think the report was a cash grab at an easy headline topic, and that the case itself is irrelevant to the story as presented. If they wanted to be informative and give a helpful perspective they wouldn't have given such blatantly clear bias and insinuated that half of a city is sheltering a child rapist. What it seems you, purple food, and monsters rain want are cheap shots to feel strong.

I assure you shuma, I have no interest in cheap shotting anything to feel strong about anything.
I dont know the victim, I dont know the accused, I dont know MSNBC, and I don't know you.

Im merely curious on what possibility is there to change the situation, to make the other side more innocent. Because you sound like you can provide some ideas, so I asked.

You might be looking too much into this. I follow a very basic logic shuma.

Nothing I have said in my posts indicates that I think a side is more or less innocent. The article wasn't even about the innocence or guilt of the suspects. The article is about the towns separation and racial anxiety that is possibly exacerbating the circumstances of trying the case.

You are all the ones that decided to turn it into a contest to scream "I don't approve of rape" the loudest. Not me. Not the article.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


You are all the ones that decided to turn it into a contest to scream "I don't approve of rape" the loudest. Not me. Not the article.

Really? I wasn't aware I was like that.... oh well.

i just hope that what happens to pedophiles at the prison near my house (folsom state prison) happens elsewhere, pedo what admitted a while back, a week later the news reports said fellow inmates effectively drawed and quartered the man, even California's worst criminals dont approve of that....

Innocent until proven guilty?

Well the guy who went on the run was proven guilty, two of the adults and all of the juveniles pleaded guilty and could probably be convinced to testify against those who didn't.

I don't see many of them avoiding jail time.

Indeed. There was a confession, video evidence, and eye witness testimony. I find it hard to be convinced that all of this was falsified.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
Nothing I have said in my posts indicates that I think a side is more or less innocent.

So, in other words, you're just trying to make yoruself feel better than everyone else around you. Gotcha.

I, and several other people, have responded to the article's being about the tensions in the town itself. Namely, I find it illogical given the evidence presented in court. While I hate to stereotype, but part of me just wants to say "Gee, trailer park residents being illogical. How bizarre and unheard of is this."

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

We don't have any info on WHY the townspeople are so divided, and some of them distrustful of the authorities. I'm all for condemning rapists. I don't have enough data to join in the chorus saying the non-rapists in the town should be killed and the earth of their homes salted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Sorry but I can't think of any possible excuses to validate it......

Nothing can validate the rapes, and no one here is claiming it can. What is being questioned is whether there are any factors or missing information which can explain WHY the other townspeople are reacting this way. And no, "trailer park people are illogical", is not a reason.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

We don't have any info on WHY the townspeople are so divided, and some of them distrustful of the authorities. I'm all for condemning rapists. I don't have enough data to join in the chorus saying the non-rapists in the town should be killed and the earth of their homes salted.

Aside from documented victim blaming, you mean?

"Them boys didn't rape her," Angie Woods told the Houston Chronicle in April. "She wanted this to happen."

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

We don't have any info on WHY the townspeople are so divided, and some of them distrustful of the authorities. I'm all for condemning rapists. I don't have enough data to join in the chorus saying the non-rapists in the town should be killed and the earth of their homes salted.

Aside from documented victim blaming, you mean?

"Them boys didn't rape her," Angie Woods told the Houston Chronicle in April. "She wanted this to happen."

Looks like the Sisters have a job to do.

Seems some of the residents think that because it wasn't what one might think of when one hears "rape", i.e. kicking and screaming, overt assault, then it's not really rape.

In a community where all there is to do is drink and feth and fight, sexuality happens at a young age, particularly for girls.

Similar stories have likely played out time and again in that community, it likely seems normal for many residents, and that is why "half the town" isn't out howling for the offender's blood.

Doesn't make it right, just likely what is happening in this case.

feeder wrote:
Seems some of the residents think that because it wasn't what one might think of when one hears "rape", i.e. kicking and screaming, overt assault, then it's not really rape.

In a community where all there is to do is drink and feth and fight, sexuality happens at a young age, particularly for girls.

She was 11, and assaulted by 20 guys.
I think your interpretation of the events is a bit off.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
11, and assaulted by 20 guys.
I think your interpretation of the events is a bit off.

You think that if this was a case of violent gangbang then the town would be divided? Some people would be claiming she wanted it?

No, I think what we have here is statutory rape, a little girl grown up too fast, and racism.

Doesn't make it right, just what likely happened here.

feeder wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
11, and assaulted by 20 guys.
I think your interpretation of the events is a bit off.

You think that if this was a case of violent gangbang then the town would be divided? Some people would be claiming she wanted it?

No, I think what we have here is statutory rape, a little girl grown up too fast, and racism.

Doesn't make it right, just what likely happened here.

Video evidence, confessions and the testimony of the girl in question be damned?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

feeder wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
11, and assaulted by 20 guys.
I think your interpretation of the events is a bit off.

You think that if this was a case of violent gangbang then the town would be divided? Some people would be claiming she wanted it?

No, I think what we have here is statutory rape, a little girl grown up too fast, and racism.

Doesn't make it right, just what likely happened here.

Video evidence, confessions and the testimony of the girl in question be damned?

I don't know, where can one read the testimony and confessions?

 dogma wrote:

 Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

Nice.
Thread about the destruction of a child's life... bring in politics. Good work.

Her life hasn't been destroyed as she isn't dead. She has been prevented from living a life in which she wasn't statutorily raped, but her life hasn't been destroyed*.

That being said, it is relevant that certain members of certain parts of the political spectrum seem to distinguish between "legitimate rape" and "illegitimate rape". Saying "ZOMG tragedy, we can't talk about politics!" is basically a failure to appreciate how political and social (because I hate the word "sociopolitical") circumstances affect the manner in which the relevant town has split.

I wasn't aiming for some GOP bashing, the 'legitimate rapes' comment while coming from a single politician reflects the though processes quite a few people have concerning rape. My comment is more following on from those I made in another thread recently about there being a culture surrounding rape which is coming through from multiple stories on the topic. There are people and certain groups of people, who do not appreciate it for what it is. They are dismissive or apologists for it, it amounts to victim blaming and slut shaming, rather than real condemnation of the crime.

 Mannahnin wrote:
There is such a concept as innocent until proven guilty, and the article seems incomplete, leaving several important questions unanswered. Such as, how on Earth did this happen several times over a span of months? The townspeople may all be horrible monsters, or possibly they may have some reason (good or bad) to be suspicious of the process and the authorities there. It's very easy to freak out and condemn them all, but there does remain a small chance that there's more to the story.

Maybe there are other reasons for the community to be sceptical. I could understand this better if the comments from the townsfolk were just of horror and disbelief, but those reported are more along the lines of an apologist attempting to excuse or explain it away; 'she didn't look 11', 'she wore makeup' or 'doesn't sound like she put up much of a fight'. It doesn't seem like some townsfolk actually deny outright that a child was raped, so much as question the validity of labelling a group of people having sex with an 11 year old as rapists in the first place.

People making these sorts of comments will probably claim any guilty verdict is an injustice and continue to claim blame the victim for 'luring' the offenders into having sex with them. I've seen and heard it before, the rapist will still somehow be see as a victim by some.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People making these sorts of comments will probably claim any guilty verdict is an injustice and continue to claim blame the victim for 'luring' the offenders into having sex with them. I've seen and heard it before, the rapist will still somehow be see as a victim by some.

That's along the lines of what I am getting at. This sort of passive attack is likely common in the community, and there is a mentality of "don't run with dogs if you don't want to get fleas."

Doesn't make it right, etc.

feeder wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
People making these sorts of comments will probably claim any guilty verdict is an injustice and continue to claim blame the victim for 'luring' the offenders into having sex with them. I've seen and heard it before, the rapist will still somehow be see as a victim by some.

That's along the lines of what I am getting at. This sort of passive attack is likely common in the community, and there is a mentality of "don't run with dogs if you don't want to get fleas."

Doesn't make it right, etc.

I can see why a black community would be skeptical of rape charges given the long history of false rape charges used against black males. Though the fact that there is actual evidence should make them realize that this isn't a case of racially motivated false accusations

 Jihadin wrote:
Think they're down on the same level as pedaphiles in prison.

Well raping an 11 year old counts as both rape and paedophilia, the accused had better have a cell to himself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'd like to hear more rationalization of how a news story is reporting adults having sex with an 11 year old out of context.

We don't have any info on WHY the townspeople are so divided, and some of them distrustful of the authorities. I'm all for condemning rapists. I don't have enough data to join in the chorus saying the non-rapists in the town should be killed and the earth of their homes salted.

Aside from documented victim blaming, you mean?

"Them boys didn't rape her," Angie Woods told the Houston Chronicle in April. "She wanted this to happen."

Hold on, if she is 11 she can't legally consent to sex with an adult.

no, in the us, most states have a age of consent of 18, the only one i know of that isnt that is Washington, which is 16.

Can't you just bomb this town out of existence? Sounds like a fething horrible place that can't even bring itself to condemn the gang rape of a child. Standards like that are pretty much the base-line when it comes to human community, get rid of the place.

 Orlanth wrote:

Hold on, if she is 11 she can't legally consent to sex with an adult.

 jordanis wrote:
no, in the us, most states have a age of consent of 18, the only one i know of that isnt that is Washington, which is 16.

You got it so completely backward you must be misreading this. You are saying that even in Washington state the law agrees she cant legally consent.
Therefore it is rape.


This is issue is divided on race rather than legal grounds in its source town methinks.

my eyes deceive me my brain switch she and can't in the sentence.

 Mannahnin wrote:

The girl is eleven years old. I don't care if she was walking around naked wearing a sandwich board with "me service you cheap, only five dolla" on, anyone who touches her is a rapist, because she is incapable of giving informed consent.

No one disagrees with this.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
It happened several times over the span of months. Did her parents do nothing? Was she being payed? That article leaves an awful lot out.

Hrrrrm, yeah, just like all them kids who's relatives abuse them over a period of years and years. and they don't tell anyone about it; surely that MUST mean that they were asking for it. It couldn't be because they're terrified of reprisals, or because they don't feel they have anyone to turn to, no, it obviously just means they're a slut and it's their own fault :

EDIT: And yes, I am judging them, all of them; the rapists and the moronic townspeople who support them, because this isn't some wishy-washy "won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!" story, an eleven year old girl was raped, repeatedly, by multiple people. There is no ethical context in which that is ok.

There is such a concept as innocent until proven guilty, and the article seems incomplete, leaving several important questions unanswered. Such as, how on Earth did this happen several times over a span of months? The townspeople may all be horrible monsters, or possibly they may have some reason (good or bad) to be suspicious of the process and the authorities there. It's very easy to freak out and condemn them all, but there does remain a small chance that there's more to the story.

How could it happen? You honestly don't see how an eleven year old girl could be terrified into silence by a group of older men who have been repeatedly raping her? This is the same kind of equivocating nonsense that was being thrown about when the Catholic Church abuse scandal first broke, and it's not on; the police have a confession and solid DNA evidence, we've moved beyond reasonable doubt now, defending them or the townspeople is indefensible. Everyone well knows the problems the US police, especially in the South, have had with minorities, but there's not even a hint of that about this case.

The information that is there is sufficient to move us beyond presumed innocence on the part of the perpetrators, and it is certainly enough to make the townspeople's position look like mindless denialism.

 Testify wrote:
Can't you just bomb this town out of existence? Sounds like a fething horrible place that can't even bring itself to condemn the gang rape of a child. Standards like that are pretty much the base-line when it comes to human community, get rid of the place.

Frankly this is pretty fething clear cut. Any one who says otherwise is deliberately being a fethhead.

Redacted by Mannahnin

I'm christian and i am beyond offended by that post, you cannot even begin to say the way they think is because they are christian, that is not a christian viewpoint. the ones who think she is at fault are probably NOT Christian.

Rule #1 excerpt: "Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible"
please refrain from insults, and by definition, that was an insult.

I don't remember Christ telling his disciples that. But then, I'm no scholar.

Jesus never talked about a lot of things that people think he talked about.

This is because the things we talk about these days were either nonexistent back then, or are completely unrecognizable to people of his day and age. Although he DID have a lot to say about the evils of the rich and of lenders/bankers/financiers/etc.

Nothing is new, just the way it is delivered, there were still pedophiles and perverts in Jesus' time, all were issues back then, he did talk about a lot of things that are still issues today. I can't pretend to know if he talked about certain subjects or not, but I do beleive he did talk about perversions.

Alright...this is now turning into a religion bent debate....stop now

 jordanis wrote:
Nothing is new

Electricity.

 Melissia wrote:

 jordanis wrote:
Nothing is new

Electricity.

Zeus did it first!

 jordanis wrote:
Nothing is new, just the way it is delivered, there were still pedophiles and perverts in Jesus' time, all were issues back then, he did talk about a lot of things that are still issues today. I can't pretend to know if he talked about certain subjects or not, but I do beleive he did talk about perversions.

Not in any meaningful way we would understand it, today.

He mentioned divorce and adultery (and that the former was the latter), that a man leering at a woman was committing "adultery in his heart" (Although a better translation is probably "possessiveness" or covetousness, as explained by Paul in how lust and the tenth commandment were connected). Otherwise... he was fairly silent about sexuality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 jordanis wrote:
Nothing is new

Electricity.

Zeus did it first!

True, also amusing. But my point is, the common person didn't use it, even if it didn't exist before. Jesus didn't use it, or have any experience with it save for seeing it in the sky. There was no understanding of what it was, nor was there an understanding that it could be used by humans.

 jordanis wrote:
Nothing is new, just the way it is delivered, there were still pedophiles and perverts in Jesus' time, all were issues back then, he did talk about a lot of things that are still issues today. I can't pretend to know if he talked about certain subjects or not, but I do beleive he did talk about perversions.

If god hadn't wasted his first four commands being shallow, he could have thrown in "thou shalt not rape" And maybe a "be excellent to each other"

Stay On Topic.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Stay On Topic.

For some reason, I just had the thought of the X-Wing guy in the 4th Star Wars movie that keeps saying, "Stay on target."
You aren't a combat pilot are you, Man?

Relapse...I had the exact same thought....you NINJA ME

That was the exact voice I was thinking in as I typed it.

I could claim psychic powers, but it's just that we all know Star Wars so well. Do you guys quote that line IRL too?

Yup, in as monatone a voice as I can muster.

Relapse wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Stay On Topic.

For some reason, I just had the thought of the X-Wing guy in the 4th Star Wars movie that keeps saying, "Stay on target."
You aren't a combat pilot are you, Man?

What you are looking for is this:



Which is actually still not on topic...

Wrong voice, though. That's Porkins.

The one you want is this:

Don't drive a wedge into the debate.

 Mannahnin wrote:
That was the exact voice I was thinking in as I typed it.

I could claim psychic powers, but it's just that we all know Star Wars so well. Do you guys quote that line IRL too?

You're not psychic you just used the force.

 dogma wrote:
Don't drive a wedge into the debate.

...

I love you so much right now Dogma.

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

I've sat in counciling sessions with people that have had their children abused and it is a really hard shot on the child that has been abused. Even if the child is too young to remember the act, there can be serious psycological repercussions in later life because of what happened, not to mention the effects on the child's family.

I didn't say that there weren't, but to claim that a child's life has been "destroyed" is to idealize what that child's life would have been without cause.

Often you like to play a devil's advoctae and argue about some minor points, but this time you're just trolling Dogma. Seriously.

This case looks all kind of messed up. Whats not being discussed is the racial angle, which is the real angle here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:

How does it feel to be judged, huh? How does it feel? Yeah, that's right. I'm judging you.

Are you excuting him to Judge Lonelictor? With helmet on or off?

Lone Lictor is The LAW!

We can't talk about religion in this thread, but pure spam is fine.

 Testify wrote:
We can't talk about religion in this thread, but pure spam is fine.

Welcome to Dakka. Discussion is discouraged, shouting and making old references is fine.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Looks like the Sisters have a job to do.

It's not often that I wish for the Sisters, but after reading some of those comments... this place is tainted beyond salvation. Redeem them all with holy fire, just and unjust alike.

 Frazzled wrote:

Often you like to play a devil's advoctae and argue about some minor points, but this time you're just trolling Dogma. Seriously.

Not really. The kid's life hasn't been destroyed, as she is still alive. The only sense in which it might have been "destroyed" is one which requires a qualitative assessment by the parents, or another observer. Which is to say an idealization.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Often you like to play a devil's advoctae and argue about some minor points, but this time you're just trolling Dogma. Seriously.

Not really. The kid's life hasn't been destroyed, as she is still alive. The only sense in which it might have been "destroyed" is one which requires a qualitative assessment by the parents, or another observer. Which is to say an idealization.

Yea its pretty destroyed. you can say: oh compared to death. true that, but of course we all die, so that arguments's irrelevant. She will never be what she was going to be.

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea its pretty destroyed. you can say: oh compared to death. true that, but of course we all die, so that arguments's irrelevant. She will never be what she was going to be.

What was she going to be?

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea its pretty destroyed. you can say: oh compared to death. true that, but of course we all die, so that arguments's irrelevant. She will never be what she was going to be.

What was she going to be?

How about, not mentally scarred for the rest of her life, or with this on her CV?

 p_gray99 wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea its pretty destroyed. you can say: oh compared to death. true that, but of course we all die, so that arguments's irrelevant. She will never be what she was going to be.

What was she going to be?

How about, not mentally scarred for the rest of her life, or with this on her CV?

That pretty much sums it up.

 p_gray99 wrote:
How about, not mentally scarred for the rest of her life, or with this on her CV?

Why would she put a sexual assault on her CV?

Regardless, my best friend was raped when she was 13. She would kick you in the balls for stating that her life was defined by that rape. It did change her life, but then so does pretty much everything we do. Significance is added by context, where "context" is not limited to the event itself.

To be blunt, the attitude Fraz is expressing is destructive (See what I did there?), and should be derided.

 Frazzled wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Often you like to play a devil's advoctae and argue about some minor points, but this time you're just trolling Dogma. Seriously.

Not really. The kid's life hasn't been destroyed, as she is still alive. The only sense in which it might have been "destroyed" is one which requires a qualitative assessment by the parents, or another observer. Which is to say an idealization.

Yea its pretty destroyed. you can say: oh compared to death. true that, but of course we all die, so that arguments's irrelevant. She will never be what she was going to be.

de·stroy   [dih-stroi] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.
to put an end to; extinguish.
3.
to kill; slay.
4.
to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize; invalidate.
5.
to defeat completely.

So... She was defeated?

I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Good, progress, we've moved past "destroyed".

 Frazzled wrote:

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

I have no decency, but I'm also not trolling. I'm honestly annoyed by the paternalistic crap you're espousing.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Good, progress, we've moved past "destroyed".

 Frazzled wrote:

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

I have no decency, but I'm also not trolling. I'm honestly annoyed by the paternalistic crap you're espousing.

I'm just not getting what posuition you're trying to take here, and frankly WHY you're making it.

The position I'm taking is that rape doesn't destroy life, and the only sense in which it could be said to is a weak appeal to imagination*. I'm taking this position because pretending that rape does destroy life is not only unhelpful, but chauvinist: "Oh no, you're not a virgin, well, you're useless now."



*My kid was going to be amazing!

It's not simply just the fact that they've had sex. It's that they were mentally not ready for it, and that they were forced into it, which would basically be telling them, "we can do what we like to you and you're an object in our minds". The knowledge that this is how people see you is plenty enough to destroy someone's sanity, and in your example of a person that simply didn't care about being raped at a young age, this simply suggests to me that she wasn't mentally capable enough to realize what this meant in the attitudes of people towards her.

 dogma wrote:
The position I'm taking is that rape doesn't destroy life, and the only sense in which it could be said to is a weak appeal to imagination. I'm taking this position because pretending that rape does destroy life is not only unhelpful, but chauvinist: "Oh no, you're not a virgin, well, you're useless now."

That's utter bs.

It's not other people saying that she's useless. It's people using this thing called empathy to try to imagine how they'd feel in that situation, where you've just been raped by a large group of men and some of the people from your town are blaming you for it.

Try and think about how that will make her feel. Will she feel the same as she did before she was raped? No, of course not. Her childhood has been shattered in a horrific way, that's something she can never get back. Her childhood and by extension the life she should have had as a child has been destroyed, she's been forced into an adult world and once that happens it's almost impossible to get out of it.

If you think it's a chauvinistic point of view then go to a help group for women victims of rape and tell them that rape doesn't destroy lives. Then you can come back here and tell us if their responses fitted with your view.

 dogma wrote:
The position I'm taking is that rape doesn't destroy life, and the only sense in which it could be said to is a weak appeal to imagination*. I'm taking this position because pretending that rape does destroy life is not only unhelpful, but chauvinist: "Oh no, you're not a virgin, well, you're useless now."

Actually I'd say that rape hurts male victims just as much. Especially young male victims, who are often emotionally tortured by the event for the rest of their lives. Many parts of our society is already hateful enough about sexuality as it is, but male on male sex is, to them, a special kind of sin that is evil and wrong and bad and evilwrongbad, no matter the situation behind it, and being victimized is, to them, just plain unmanly!

Ugh.

 p_gray99 wrote:

...and in your example of a person that simply didn't care about being raped at a young age...

I didn't say that she didn't care, I said that she would take umbrage to someone claiming that her rape defined her life.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It's not other people saying that she's useless. It's people using this thing called empathy to try to imagine how they'd feel in that situation, where you've just been raped by a large group of men and some of the people from your town are blaming you for it.

I'm sure that she would feel useless, but do you think its a good idea to reinforce that notion?

I'll answer for you: No, it isn't.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

...the life she should have had as a child has been destroyed, she's been forced into an adult world and once that happens it's almost impossible to get out of it.

So, the life you wanted her to have?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

If you think it's a chauvinistic point of view then go to a help group for women victims of rape and tell them that rape doesn't destroy lives. Then you can come back here and tell us if their responses fitted with your view.

They probably wouldn't, because the would most likely respond emotively. I'm not sure why that should be considered descriptive.

 Melissia wrote:
Actually I'd say that rape hurts male victims just as much. Especially young male victims, who are often emotionally tortured by the event for the rest of their lives. Many parts of our society is already hateful enough about sexuality as it is, but male on male sex is, to them, a special kind of sin that is evil and wrong and bad and evilwrongbad, no matter the situation behind it, and being victimized is, to them, just plain unmanly!

Ugh.

Fair point, I agree.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

From the start this thread has been blind rampaging spam by people without the decency to read the article or process what it was actually talking about. You're doing no better. Don't try to claim a high horse when all you're doing is running around with a sad mob because it gets your blood up when you hear about something you don't have experience with happening in a place you've never been to people you never knew in an article that didn't seek to inform you about any of the above. You're just another angry little blip in their advertisement click through statistic.

You're just helping to make the world more uninformed.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

From the start this thread has been blind rampaging spam by people without the decency to read the article or process what it was actually talking about. You're doing no better. Don't try to claim a high horse when all you're doing is running around with a sad mob because it gets your blood up when you hear about something you don't have experience with happening in a place you've never been to people you never knew in an article that didn't seek to inform you about any of the above. You're just another angry little blip in their advertisement click through statistic.

You're just helping to make the world more uninformed.

Well I for one am glad you got that off your chest. Do you feel better now?

Shuma, can you stop ranting about how you're better than everyone else, we have a thread here and we're trying to talk about stuff.

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

From the start this thread has been blind rampaging spam by people without the decency to read the article or process what it was actually talking about. You're doing no better. Don't try to claim a high horse when all you're doing is running around with a sad mob because it gets your blood up when you hear about something you don't have experience with happening in a place you've never been to people you never knew in an article that didn't seek to inform you about any of the above. You're just another angry little blip in their advertisement click through statistic.

You're just helping to make the world more uninformed.

Well I for one am glad you got that off your chest. Do you feel better now?

No, because inevitably in an hour you're going to be in another thread spreading disinformation, pulling it off topic, or arguing a fallacious argument about something you read on free republic. This entire thread is indicative of the fact that this forum has an exceptionally difficult time discussing anything the least bit "ugly" or contentious without having two thirds of all replies being the same spammy "I don't approve of rape!" type of reply, as if that were ever the basis of the discussion in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Shuma, can you stop ranting about how you're better than everyone else, we have a thread here and we're trying to talk about stuff.

Oh, you mean you want to talk about whats not in the bible and how Christians are unchristian some more?

That would actually be more interesting than you talking about how you're better than everyone else, yes

But personally, I was more thinking about talking about, you know, how the town itself is behaving emotionally instead of rationally.

 Melissia wrote:
That would actually be more interesting than you talking about how you're better than everyone else, yes

But personally, I was more thinking about talking about, you know, how the town itself is behaving emotionally instead of rationally.

Oh, the thing I had been trying to talk about for pages while people asked why I was defending rape? The thing you haven't mentioned a single time in this thread? Sure, I'd love to talk about that.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, when was "gang raped at the age of 11" not ever a life crushing situation that would change a person like, forever.

Quit trolling this. Seriously. In the words of the immortal bard:
"Have you no decency sir!"

From the start this thread has been blind rampaging spam by people without the decency to read the article or process what it was actually talking about. You're doing no better. Don't try to claim a high horse when all you're doing is running around with a sad mob because it gets your blood up when you hear about something you don't have experience with happening in a place you've never been to people you never knew in an article that didn't seek to inform you about any of the above. You're just another angry little blip in their advertisement click through statistic.

You're just helping to make the world more uninformed.

Well I for one am glad you got that off your chest. Do you feel better now?

No, because inevitably in an hour you're going to be in another thread spreading disinformation, pulling it off topic, or arguing a fallacious argument about something you read on free republic. This entire thread is indicative of the fact that this forum has an exceptionally difficult time discussing anything the least bit "ugly" or contentious without having two thirds of all replies being the same spammy "I don't approve of rape!" type of reply, as if that were ever the basis of the discussion in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
Shuma, can you stop ranting about how you're better than everyone else, we have a thread here and we're trying to talk about stuff.

Oh, you mean you want to talk about whats not in the bible and how Christians are unchristian some more?

Hey no one is making you read it.

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The thing you haven't mentioned a single time in this thread? Sure, I'd love to talk about that.

Goddamnit Shuma, stop being such a massive, hilarious failure. My face is hurting from laughing while recovering from recent sunburns -.-

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, I'm passing judgement. Even if she said okay, I'd STILL condemn the rapes and the people who blamed her.

She's ELEVEN YEARS OLD. Even IF it was her choice, it wasn't her choice.

Despite evidence at Eric McGowen's trial that included a confession, DNA evidence, the girl's tearful testimony and a video of her being assaulted, others haven't been swayed.

http://techdigest.tv/nuclear_explosion.jpg
The only solution.

[Emphasis not in original post]
My first post in the thread. My second post was also on topic. As was my third. In fact, I was on topic until the third page Meanwhile you were doing your arrogant schmuck shtick, getting off topic on your second post in the thread.

But you know, I change my mind; keep on ranting Shuma, even if it hurts, laughter is still pleasant

Or perhaps we can, you know, get on topic. Certainly I don't mind sticking to my guns, as it were.

 Melissia wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
The thing you haven't mentioned a single time in this thread? Sure, I'd love to talk about that.

Goddamnit Shuma, stop being such a massive, hilarious failure. My face is hurting from laughing while recovering from recent sunburns -.-

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, I'm passing judgement. Even if she said okay, I'd STILL condemn the rapes and the people who blamed her.

She's ELEVEN YEARS OLD. Even IF it was her choice, it wasn't her choice.

Despite evidence at Eric McGowen's trial that included a confession, DNA evidence, the girl's tearful testimony and a video of her being assaulted, others haven't been swayed.

http://techdigest.tv/nuclear_explosion.jpg
The only solution.

[Emphasis not in original post]
My first post in the thread. My second post was also on topic. As was my third. In fact, I was on topic until the third page Meanwhile you were doing your arrogant schmuck shtick, getting off topic on your second post in the thread.

But you know, I change my mind; keep on ranting Shuma, even if it hurts, laughter is still pleasant

Or perhaps we can, you know, get on topic. Certainly I don't mind sticking to my guns, as it were.

Ahh, yes. Your spammy me too post where you rant about how terrible the town is without trying to discuss anything relating to the article. I see you added a nuclear explosion to it and inferred that you want everyone involved to die.

Yep Mellissa, thats clearly not the exact kind of useless and inflammatory post that I've been trying to battle against all thread. Clearly you're here for the discussion of racial divisiveness and bias in reporting and not the "me too" uninformed anger and armchair judging. the nuclear explosion makes that clear

I'll just pack up my bags and take a vacation. Clearly you've got the intellectual side of this handled. It's in the bag. I can sip my tea in peace knowing you're on watch here.

When in her defense I'm not seeing you espousing much of anything except hostility. Please further enlighten us on your views on the racial angle.

You drink tea? I can honestly say that I never saw that coming.

 Frazzled wrote:
When in her defense I'm not seeing you espousing much of anything except hostility. Please further enlighten us on your views on the racial angle.

"There's probably a good deal of racial tension involving all black arrests involving rape considering the regional history concerning false arrests motivated by racism using rape as the crime." It's hard to have an opinion on the issue since the article does such an incredibly poor time elaborating on anything other than the moral laxity of the town. That's why my first few posts were talking about how poor and targeted the article was, rather than commenting on the situation. We don't actually have enough info to really come to a useful conclusion on this. Doing such is a disservice to everyone because this is a heavy issue involving tens of thousands of people and here everyone is judging them without a barest minimum of facts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:
You drink tea? I can honestly say that I never saw that coming.

I love tea. Little bit of milk in some english black and I'm set.

 Albatross wrote:
You drink tea? I can honestly say that I never saw that coming.

If referring to me:
Summer: you betcha
Winter: Earl Grey or Russian Tea.
Now I know you saying LIAR!!!!! Texas has no weather besides "summer" and "hell on earth." We're just so use to the heat that, when it drops below 100,000 we get cold.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ShumaGorath wrote:
"There's probably a good deal of racial tension involving all black arrests involving rape considering the regional history concerning false arrests motivated by racism using rape as the crime." It's hard to have an opinion on the issue since the article does such an incredibly poor time elaborating on anything other than the moral laxity of the town. That's why my first few posts were talking about how poor and targeted the article was, rather than commenting on the situation. We don't actually have enough info to really come to a useful conclusion on this. Doing such is a disservice to everyone because this is a heavy issue involving tens of thousands of people and here everyone is judging them without a barest minimum of facts.

Agreed and thats the real story - although we're not seeing it. The ethnicity of the victim is a deal here as well: hispanic. Not only is there the racial angle (black vs. brown), but you have "newcomers" vs. "immigrants" going on in that context.

 dogma wrote:
The position I'm taking is that rape doesn't destroy life, and the only sense in which it could be said to is a weak appeal to imagination*. I'm taking this position because pretending that rape does destroy life is not only unhelpful, but chauvinist: "Oh no, you're not a virgin, well, you're useless now."



*My kid was going to be amazing!

Thats so mean, and not cute even if you are studying to be a lawyer

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/mentalimpact.shtml

http://www.suicide.org/rape-victims-prone-to-suicide.html

I just hope if you ever have a daughter, she wont suffer the same fate,
or even worse, you telling her what you told Frazzled ....

Also the petty talk making fun of the sentence "destroyed her life" , nope there is nothing wrong with that sentence since life and living life is also philosophical.

de·stroy   [dih-stroi] Show IPA

1.
to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form, or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.
2.
to put an end to; extinguish.

"Life, live, lively, full of life "

the animate existence or period of animate existence of an individual: to risk one's life; a short life and a merry one.

the general or universal condition of human existence: Too bad, but life is like that.

You guys knew perfectly what he meant, yet you decide to poke fun of it, yes you are such classy people.

@Dogma, I DO realize you use dakka as a leisure, past time type of "game/practice / exercise" for your studies. But good luck if you think a bunch of good willed people posting for the sake of
justice, is comparable with what you needed... "lawyers that are capable ( not really about capability, whether give a damn about wanting to argue whether black is actually white" You are just fooling yourself.

I was molested as a child by my male babysitter, if you say to my face that it 'destroyed my life' then I will fething break you. When you say that you tell the victim that they are no longer a person, their entire life is now defined by that one event. That they can never be a complete person nor live a normal life. All my hatred goes to people who act as if that singular action is now the entirety of my person, and I hold now ill will to my attacker who I have long since forgiven. I find those who reinforce negative thoughts and feelings to be odious and have a complete misunderstanding of a victims mentality and are doing it solely to make themselves feel better.

 youbedead wrote:
I was molested as a child by my male babysitter, if you say to my face that it 'destroyed my life' then I will fething break you. When you say that you tell the victim that they are no longer a person, their entire life is now defined by that one event. That they can never be a complete person nor live a normal life. All my hatred goes to people who act as if that singular action is now the entirety of my person, and I hold now ill will to my attacker who I have long since forgiven. I find those who reinforce negative thoughts and feelings to be odious and have a complete misunderstanding of a victims mentality and are doing it solely to make themselves feel better.

Yes because clearly, you = everyone right? I mean half of me want to congratulate how you can overcome and defeat such incident.

But the other half of me just want to rage over the fact that you think just because YOU could, you assume everyone else can.

OT is often so interesting, as interesting as 4chan. Because down to it, its still nothing but a microcosm.

 LunaHound wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
I was molested as a child by my male babysitter, if you say to my face that it 'destroyed my life' then I will fething break you. When you say that you tell the victim that they are no longer a person, their entire life is now defined by that one event. That they can never be a complete person nor live a normal life. All my hatred goes to people who act as if that singular action is now the entirety of my person, and I hold now ill will to my attacker who I have long since forgiven. I find those who reinforce negative thoughts and feelings to be odious and have a complete misunderstanding of a victims mentality and are doing it solely to make themselves feel better.

Yes because clearly, you = everyone right? I mean half of me want to congratulate how you can overcome and defeat such incident.

But the other half of me just want to rage over the fact that you think just because YOU could, you assume everyone else can.

OT is often so interesting, as interesting as 4chan. Because down to it, its still nothing but a microcosm.

People who were victims of rape or molestation don't starve to death or cross styx in a reed boat so it looks like they aren't "destroyed". I'm sure some are left scarred for their lives, but you can say that about car accidents and fights too. I've been in both, I'm still here. Pretending that humans are frail creatures that cease to exist when something bad happens to them is delusional at best and indicates that you don't look at the world or its history very often. It's also a basic logical fallacy the way you are transferring properties like that.

Also, 4chan has over 22 million unique hits per month. that's larger than a lot of countries. It's 10 times the population of the state of Maine where I grew up. You should probably check somethings size before using the term microcosm.

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Also, 4chan has over 22 million unique hits per month. that's larger than a lot of countries. It's 10 times the population of the state of Maine where I grew up. You should probably check somethings size before using the term microcosm.

Say even if your numbers are accurate, which I doubt, 22,000,000 is still but a small fraction of 6,973,738,433 , in fact only 3%.

Next?

nitpicking/ˈnitˌpikiNG/

Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, esp. in order to criticize unnecessarily: "a nitpicking legalistic exercise".
Fussy fault-finding: "nitpicking over tiny details".

Can we just say it would have a startling affect upon her psyche, one society finds abhorrent, and move on?

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Also, 4chan has over 22 million unique hits per month. that's larger than a lot of countries. It's 10 times the population of the state of Maine where I grew up. You should probably check somethings size before using the term microcosm.

Say even if your numbers are accurate, which I doubt, 22,000,000 is still but a small fraction of 6,973,738,433 , in fact only 3%.

Next?

nitpicking/ˈnitˌpikiNG/

Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, esp. in order to criticize unnecessarily: "a nitpicking legalistic exercise".
Fussy fault-finding: "nitpicking over tiny details".

As a side note, this thread has taken a rather depressing turn.

 LunaHound wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:


Also, 4chan has over 22 million unique hits per month. that's larger than a lot of countries. It's 10 times the population of the state of Maine where I grew up. You should probably check somethings size before using the term microcosm.

Say even if your numbers are accurate, which I doubt, 22,000,000 is still but a small fraction of 6,973,738,433 , in fact only 3%.

Next?

nitpicking/ˈnitˌpikiNG/

Looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, esp. in order to criticize unnecessarily: "a nitpicking legalistic exercise".
Fussy fault-finding: "nitpicking over tiny details".

As opposed to using logical loopholes the size of the moon (clearly another microcosm, its smaller than the earth after all!) and comparisons to online communities you don't like to push some sort of wacky reality where victims of sexual violence cease being human because you feel that they must?

Yeah. Nitpicking. Sure. Whatever.

As a side note, this thread has taken a rather depressing turn.

This thread has started off in freefall with a yellow journalist article about a town of rape defending black people. Nothing about this thread has every been anything but lock worthy.

You honestly don't understand the mindset of a victim, and I don't fault you for it, you can't. But the mindset you are putting forth is destructive to the psyche of a victim. How do you honestly think someone will feel if you tell them that this one thing, which as already caused trauma, has destroyed their life and they can never be normal again.

I understand the natural reaction is outrage at the offender and that you want to demonize them as much as possible but focusing only on the attacker can further scar the victim, you're are telling them that their attacker has ultimate control of their life. When you should be helping them overcome that feeling, you need to make them feel like they have control over their own life and that they are stronger then there attacker.

A person very close and dear to me was a victim of childhood sexual abuse.

She is a functioning member of society and has led a very successful life. But she also carries deep emotional scars 20 years later.

 youbedead wrote:
You honestly don't understand the mindset of a victim, and I don't fault you for it, you can't. But the mindset you are putting forth is destructive to the psyche of a victim. How do you honestly think someone will feel if you tell them that this one thing, which as already caused trauma, has destroyed their life and they can never be normal again.

I understand the natural reaction is outrage at the offender and that you want to demonize them as much as possible but focusing only on the attacker can further scar the victim, you're are telling them that their attacker has ultimate control of their life. When you should be helping them overcome that feeling, you need to make them feel like they have control over their own life and that they are stronger then there attacker.

how about if you put their attackers against the wall and fill them with hollowpoints?

 Frazzled wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
You honestly don't understand the mindset of a victim, and I don't fault you for it, you can't. But the mindset you are putting forth is destructive to the psyche of a victim. How do you honestly think someone will feel if you tell them that this one thing, which as already caused trauma, has destroyed their life and they can never be normal again.

I understand the natural reaction is outrage at the offender and that you want to demonize them as much as possible but focusing only on the attacker can further scar the victim, you're are telling them that their attacker has ultimate control of their life. When you should be helping them overcome that feeling, you need to make them feel like they have control over their own life and that they are stronger then there attacker.

how about if you put their attackers against the wall and fill them with hollowpoints?

How would killing the attackers make you better than them?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 youbedead wrote:
You honestly don't understand the mindset of a victim, and I don't fault you for it, you can't. But the mindset you are putting forth is destructive to the psyche of a victim. How do you honestly think someone will feel if you tell them that this one thing, which as already caused trauma, has destroyed their life and they can never be normal again.

I understand the natural reaction is outrage at the offender and that you want to demonize them as much as possible but focusing only on the attacker can further scar the victim, you're are telling them that their attacker has ultimate control of their life. When you should be helping them overcome that feeling, you need to make them feel like they have control over their own life and that they are stronger then there attacker.

how about if you put their attackers against the wall and fill them with hollowpoints?

How would killing the attackers make you better than them?

Well an atheist would say they wouldn't be feeling much of anything.

Throw them in the Gulag....wait this is the US...throw them in the FEMA camps....