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.

Melissia wrote:It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.

Don't sell the new generation short. Their Internet-Fu is strong, and rural/suburban/urban has little bearing as long as they aren't stuck on dial up anymore.

Bromsy wrote:
Don't sell the new generation short. Their Internet-Fu is strong, and rural/suburban/urban has little bearing as long as they aren't stuck on dial up anymore.

Agreed. Those little bastards sneak up on you with some of the stuff they know.

I am well aware that you can die after one blow of course, you read about it all the time with a world population of nearly 7 billion, the old "punched then fell and heabutted the kerb causing brain injury/snapped neck or something.. but it IS very rare, I'm speaking in general obviously.

I think it must be a tiny chance of even several blows killing a man in a fight, maybe one in every 100,000 or something, because look how many brawls there are every day in the west among piss heads coming out of pubs and bars!

Millions of drunks and young lads boot the gak out of each other on a regular basis, If death as a result of a good kicking was common place, the population of places like Scotland, Ireland and Middlesbrough would be culled by several thousand on weeknights, and about 1.6 million on Friday and Saturday nights.

And on New Years Eve?! It doesn't even bear thinking about!

deathholydeath wrote:
I think he meant the alleged rapist and was providing a commentary on the ludicrous nature of our justice system.

Yeah, ask questions before sentencing, totally ludicrous.

Remember, I have no reason to trust you, and would be stupid if I did in spite.

mattyrm wrote:
I think it must be a tiny chance of even several blows killing a man in a fight, maybe one in every 100,000 or something, because look how many brawls there are every day in the west among piss heads coming out of pubs and bars!

Yeah, but you know they don't really put their all into those punches. Hitting another person in the head is a dicey proposition for most people. Unless you've been conditioned for it most people pull up on reflex, after all human skulls are hard.

mattyrm wrote:I am well aware that you can die after one blow of course, you read about it all the time with a world population of nearly 7 billion, the old "punched then fell and heabutted the kerb causing brain injury/snapped neck or something.. but it IS very rare, I'm speaking in general obviously.

I think it must be a tiny chance of even several blows killing a man in a fight, maybe one in every 100,000 or something, because look how many brawls there are every day in the west among piss heads coming out of pubs and bars!

Millions of drunks and young lads boot the gak out of each other on a regular basis, If death as a result of a good kicking was common place, the population of places like Scotland, Ireland and Middlesbrough would be culled by several thousand on weeknights, and about 1.6 million on Friday and Saturday nights.

And on New Years Eve?! It doesn't even bear thinking about!

We all know being drunk makes you tougher, that is just simple science. The point being that the alleged assaulter was apparently sober and thus his skull more prone to righteous punchings.

Melissia wrote:It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.

Of the kids I've known of who could read at very young ages (I mean actually read, not just know their ABCs and be able to recognize a handful of vocabulary words), it usually had more to do with the parents teaching the kids themselves, not sending them to preschool. I'm not saying preschool is bad or pointless or anything, just that most kids don't come out of preschool being able to read children's books on their own without a lot of help from parents, because being able to read at that level isn't really the focus of preschool. Preschools exist in rural school districts too, and plenty of people send their kids to them, so I don't think that really has anything to do with it either.

I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.


Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.

Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.


Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.

I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.


Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.

I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...

I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.

Bromsy wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.


Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.

I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...

I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.

You are very awesomely humble...
It's rather remarkable really

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.


Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.

I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...

I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.

You are very awesomely humble...
It's rather remarkable really

It is a totally unique and impressive ability I have, to be this humble. I may write a keytar solo about it, whilst flipping through the air.

Bromsy wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.


Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.

I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...

I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.

You are very awesomely humble...
It's rather remarkable really

It is a totally unique and impressive ability I have, to be this humble. I may write a keytar solo about it, whilst flipping through the air.

It's already got 120,00,000 views on Youtube...

In my life, we call this tuesday.

Bromsy wrote: I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself.

Its alright, the first book I remember reading was Aristotle's Metaphysics (definitely didn't understand it); I've not forgiven the old man.

dogma wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:
I think he meant the alleged rapist and was providing a commentary on the ludicrous nature of our justice system.

Yeah, ask questions before sentencing, totally ludicrous.

Remember, I have no reason to trust you, and would be stupid if I did in spite.

That's not exactly what I meant. I meant that a convicted rapist getting 10 years and getting out in 4 is ludicrous.

deathholydeath wrote:
That's not exactly what I meant. I meant that a convicted rapist getting 10 years and getting out in 4 is ludicrous.

Why? Honest question.

dogma wrote:

deathholydeath wrote:
That's not exactly what I meant. I meant that a convicted rapist getting 10 years and getting out in 4 is ludicrous.

Why? Honest question.

Sure. I'll preface this by saying that this is my opinion, I am admittedly biased, and I'm very tired. So, just keep that in mind.
Rape is the only crime for which I can imagine no mitigating circumstances. Murder has room for justification and extenuating circumstances (self-defense, throes of passion, etc). Theft likewise.
The only reason a person rapes another person is because they want to--it doesn't happen by accident. We can make a case for insanity for this if we like, but excepting this, no sane person rapes another for any reason other than the desire to do so.
with regard to definition of terms, I'm talking about violent rape-- a sexual act committed against someone who has said no or otherwise communicated that the act is not desirable. I would say this also applies to people unable to communicate and to people who do not understand the terms-- an unconscious person, an extremely mentally handicapped individual, or a child for example.
I find it ludicrous that a man who robs a bank for 100$ to feed himself gets 15 years in prison while a rapist acting with deliberate intent gets only eight years.

Bromsy wrote:I'm with the Grakster. Girl is gonna have some gak to get over.

That said, if you walk in and some dude has his hands down your daughter's pants, our silly societal construct known as family doesn't leave a lot of room for reasoned response. Unless the father got up from the guys supine body, went and got a claw hammer from the garage and finished the job, he ought to walk. I'm all for investigating, but that is really all anyone ought to be saying. There really isn't a reason to invent scenarios where it was innocent misunderstanding and the father is the bad guy. Just say "I think this needs to be investigated, without bias." Done, simple, and people can't really get all offended by that and shout back and turn this into a whole thing.

Bromsy has the way of it. Now go take some bath salts and get your zombie freak on!

He did what we'd all do in that situation. Well, maybe 99% of us. I doubt that he'd get convicted, though if it were me I'd take a sentence for my actions happy in the knowledge that I'd protected my child.

If I.did.nothing and he walked free, I'd probably kill myself.from the guilt that my inaction had caused. (and in doing so, feth my kids mind up even more, so maybe not, but I'd be fanned tempted!)

All hypothetically speaking of.course.

Melissia wrote:It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.

Most 4-year-olds regularly shout "Nu UH!" vehemently when someone they don't like poses a thought, regardless of how asinine the position. I'd say they'd fit right in!

I think rapists should be placed in a psych ward and not released until they are no longer likely to commit.

There's some reason they do what they do and to put an arbitrary time limit before release without solving the problem makes no sense to me. I accept this may mean permanent incarceration for some.

Ten years is a long sentence. It may not be long enough to change a person.

deathholydeath wrote:
Rape is the only crime for which I can imagine no mitigating circumstances.

Drunk with that cute girl after a party, if a liberal definition of rape is used. She sort of says "No" but not really. Didn't mean to rape, but she feels like she was raped.

It's almost like he defined it in his post...

with regard to definition of terms, I'm talking about violent rape-- a sexual act committed against someone who has said no or otherwise communicated that the act is not desirable. I would say this also applies to people unable to communicate and to people who do not understand the terms-- an unconscious person, an extremely mentally handicapped individual, or a child for example.

"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?

dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?

Try not to use it as an excuse at trial. Its a defense that no longer works in most states.

Frazzled wrote:
Try not to use it as an excuse at trial. Its a defense that no longer works in most states.

And it shouldn't, its lame excuse. Really lame.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Try not to use it as an excuse at trial. Its a defense that no longer works in most states.

And it shouldn't, its lame excuse. Really lame.

Agreed, and so do most courts, either because of stare decisis or actual legislation that made them stop that crap.

Defendant: "She said no but her eyes said yes."
Warden: "Thats just what your cellmate said about you when I told him you were coming."

dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?

My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'

Blackskullandy wrote:

dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?

My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'

My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped. My sister and I both told her no, she wasn't because she consented and never verbally told the guy to stop. I asked her if she actually felt a guy should ask every couple of minutes if he could continue and she said yes. I can see the human race surviving if everyone was as intelligent as her...

Another true story time as to girls drinking and claiming rape-my buddy got plastered at college, went to play Monopoly with a group of friends and everyone had one single beer. One of the girls talked him into sleeping with her (he was very drunk, and was easily taken advantage of). She had previously joined a Christian group on campus, and the next morning felt guilty for sleeping with a guy. So, because of this, she told the RD that she was raped by him to ease her guilty conscience of taking advantage of him. He was allowed to stay at school, but was put on automatic probation and barred from ever entering that dorm again.

Third true story: another friend who was an RA flirted with another RA who was incapable of scoring with him (he was a soccer/football star player, in great shape and had no trouble getting dates, she was very unattractive and not in shape at all). She pressed her advances, he declined and she informed their boss that he tried to force himself on her. He lost his job, got kicked out of the dorm and was brought up on further disciplinary action. Thankfully my RA caught her smoking pot at a party, reported her and got her booted out too.

Moral of the story: don't trust girls in college.

Moral of the story: don't trust anyone.

Fixed your quote.