Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
Why is this a French statue?

It isn't... I believe it is normally housed in an American museum, or art gallery or some such, but is currently on loan to a museum near the Normandy Beaches.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

By which logic the Rape of Nanking wasn't a crime against humanity, as that term had not yet been invented. That's insane.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Its not sexual assault because NOBODY complained about it afterwards.

So if I kill someone and chuck the body into a volcano it's not murder, because no one complained afterwards?

The contorted means by which you twist an argument to state something abhorrent that it does not support show that you have nothing valid to say.

i will have to assume you are not a complete drooling moron and can actually distinguish between a massacre, or a brutal murder and a kiss.
You are just saying all this because you have long run out of any room for rational argument.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
// Title changed to be less offensive and more to the point

Still being a douche about it though. The argument being presented is a legitimate one, whereas you've not proven in any way that it's just down to "attention seeking".

He summed it up reasonably well.
There is room for feminists to make their own interpretation of the artwork, they have no right to impose it as a definitive interpretation on everyone. and label the artwork and the event it is based on a de facto affront.
Is this 'desperate attention craving'? That remains to be seen. Its certainly both revisionist and doctrinarian.

It's an irrational argument when he is using it but not when you are using it?

Is that revisionist?

 Sigvatr wrote:
// Title changed to be less offensive and more to the point

That... really is not very unoffensive either.

 d-usa wrote:
Between the "it's not sexual assault if the person sexually assaulting you doesn't do it for sexual reasons" argument and now the "it's not sexual assault if the victim doesn't say anything" argument this thread has managed to provide two of the most despicable statements on Dakka. I am sincerely sorry that there will be survivors of sexual assault who have to read this gak.

Your failure to understand the concept of intent in term of criminal prosecution is mind-boggling and frightening in a way that makes me both sad and happy.

Sad at how little comprehension there is of how the law is supposed to work.

Happy that you are not a DA or Judge.


Btw, your labeling of of the fact that one needs to prove intent in such a case as "despicable" is very enlightening.

I guess by your standards that anyone who tries to defend themselves against such a charge is automatically guilty and despicable.

There is no logic in your post above, instead there is only zealous political correctness masquerading as empathy.

Your attempt to use victims of sexual assault who might read this thread as a tool to manipulate the opinions of others is what is truly despicable.. Using sexual assault victims to hide the fact that you have no argument, only an agenda is as low as one can get.


Later,
ff