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.

Polonius wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
Erudite? Such a developed term for someone who did not understand the context of my original post, yet decides to argue it incorrectly anyway.

You seem to be searching for points to argue. Deliberately taking the topic off into little tangents in which you randomly list facts and terminology in order to position yourself as superior... all the while ignoring the initial arguement topic...

Both yourself and 'dogma' suffer this same condition, though I do not need to possess an overly-expressive vocabulary to explain to everyone this... nor do I feel the urge to express it as such in order to feed some obvious inferiority complex which you believe will be alleviated by making responses to this effect.

In future, please address someone's point directly... otherwise, your post serves no purpose other than to highlight this.

If your original argument was that we shouldn't blame victims of rape for being raped, than congratulations: I totally agree.

It doesn't change the fact that the action of a victim are still relevant to any discussion of a crime.

I'm sorry if you feel like my "knowledge" and "experience" on a topic are inappropriate to bring into a discussion.

If you feel like i'm misunderstanding your point, why not try to explain it?

Im glad you agree.

However, the remainder of your posts do not address mine directly, thus, should not be aimed at my post. Please learn to quote/reference your responses correctly if not directly addressing them.

Further, your "knowledge" and "experience" are not exhibited at all. What qualifications do you have (not that you can prove them here) that qualify these? Your responses are certainly not expressive of this nor do they actually relate directly to my posts. Simply, you are unnecessarily verbose, for reasons I have already explained.

AvatarForm wrote:
Im glad you agree.

However, the remainder of your posts do not address mine directly, thus, should not be aimed at my post. Please learn to quote/reference your responses correctly if not directly addressing them.

Further, your "knowledge" and "experience" are not exhibited at all. What qualifications do you have (not that you can prove them here) that qualify these? Your responses are certainly not expressive of this nor do they actually relate directly to my posts. Simply, you are unnecessarily verbose, for reasons I have already explained.

Well, it's pretty standard practice around here to use a comment as a springboard for a tangent. I mean, I suppose we could do a better job of responding to a post, and then saying "but in general..." before tangenting off. I think Dogma explicitly said "that's true of rape, but not other things." Meaning, he agreed with your point, and but was showing how things are sometimes different.

As for my knowledge, I'm a licensed attorney in the state of Ohio, so I know a little bit about criminal law, the rationale behind it, and the ways that context and cirucmstances can come into play.

As for relating directly to your post, what the hell do you want other than "yes, I agree that rape is bad and nobody deserves to be raped and 'No means no?'" Should the conversation end there? Or can we maybe explore why rape is distinct from other crimes? Or perhaps question why that is the case? I'm sorry if you dislike conversation meandering, but if that's the case, than the OT forum probably isn't the best place for you, because that happens in virtually every thread.

As for being unneccesarily verbose, well, consider it noted. I think I've made my points relatively succinctly while trying to further a conversation that can move past a college orientation lecture on rape preventions.

Polonius wrote:I think it's likely you're bringing a healthy dose of your own bias into reading the story, rather than seeing the the bias of the reporting. Given that the victim wasn't local or available for questioning, is it surprising that most of the reporting is based on the community and the pepretrators? What are they supposed to do?

I don't know. Lets look at similar first-impression coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case (I'd link to the NYT directly, but stupid paywall).

Any mention of the boys "liv[ing] with this the rest of their lives?" No.

Question about who is next to be arrested? No.

Mention of academics? No.

While there is a mention that she was a dancer, they didn't talk about her reputation, the fact that she was a stripper, or really anything relevant about her history. And all this without interviewing her (relying only on the prosecutor and police statements).

Polonius wrote:Spending time reinforcing the idea that rape of an 11 year old is bad isn't just a waste of space, but also comes close to sensationalist journalism. I think the question a lot of people have when they read a story like this is "why would anybody do that?"

Of course it's sensationalist journalism. There are a lot of rape cases out there, and they all carry with them the quesion of "why would someone do such a thing?" I think it's quite obvious that the Times picked up this story not because of the crime, but because of the identity of the victim and (accused) perpetrators. More specifically, because it's a race and poverty issue.

Similarly, the Times picked up the Duke Lacrosse case because it was a case about race (black vs. white) and social class (wealthy rich kids vs. poor stripper). It never was just about a 'rape.'

I'm not sure what your point is, other than to make the case that "different stories were reported differently."

I think one key difference is that the Duke story was breaking news: the events were hours old. The Texas story is describing the effects on the community six months later. If the peice has a bias, it's because the view is less "here is what happened to the victim" and more "this is what has happened to a community." I think the goals of the two pieces are notably different.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure what your point is, other than to make the case that "different stories were reported differently."

You asked what they could have done if the victim was unavailable. I pointed out an example where, with an unavailable victim, the Times inverviewed the prosecutor, reviewed the police file, and asked eyewitnesses about what they saw.

The Times didn't quote friends and family of the accused, didn't report on the woman's appearance, and generally didn't blame the victim.

My point here is that the Times really is treating this story differently, and it's not a "perfectly sensible article."

You're a lawyer, you know the value of precedence. You can't distinguish every case on it's facts alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Polonius wrote:I think one key difference is that the Duke story was breaking news: the events were hours old.

The article was published March 29, the incident was on March 13, and the on-campus protests started around the 24th.

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure what your point is, other than to make the case that "different stories were reported differently."

You asked what they could have done if the victim was unavailable. I pointed out an example where, with an unavailable victim, the Times inverviewed the prosecutor, reviewed the police file, and asked eyewitnesses about what they saw.

From the original article: (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us/09assault.html?_r=4)

"The police have declined to discuss their inquiry because it is continuing."

"Five suspects are students at Cleveland High School, including two members of the basketball team. Another is the 21-year-old son of a school board member. A few of the others have criminal records, from selling drugs to robbery and, in one case, manslaughter. "

"Churches have held prayer services for the victim. "

It seems like they've tried to talk to the police, got some info on the suspects, and report that the community does seem to care about the girl.

The Times didn't quote friends and family of the accused, didn't report on the woman's appearance, and generally didn't blame the victim.

My point here is that the Times really is treating this story differently, and it's not a "perfectly sensible article."

You're a lawyer, you know the value of precedence. You can't distinguish every case on it's facts alone.

Well, as I stated, the Texas story reported statements from friends and family of the accused because it's about the community, not the. the headline reads "Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town", which seems to imply that the article is more about the town than the assault.

The one comment that seems to be "blaming the victim" is the section in which they report what some in the community have said about how she dressed. You can argue how that's relevant, although I think it helps to paint a mroe complete picture of the event. Compare a few comments from locals in the middle of the article with a headline that uses the term "vicious assault" and it seems hard to really paint the article as blaming the victim.

And actually, distinguishing cases based on facts is how you do it, unless you're using the term distinguish to mean something different than we do in law. To distinguish a case, you show that while there is precedent for an issue, you have facts that are different enough from that precdent that a judge should not follow the precedent.

So, if you accept the Duke coverage as precedent for how to handle reporting of a rape case, this story is easy to distinguish: there is a six month gap between the events and the story, and there is far less doubt as to if an assault happened. Those two facts mean that the two stories should have different aims.

The duke story seemed to focus more on the protests, which were still occuring. there is still a big difference between an investigation that's two weeks after the events, and one that is six months later.

I agree that this is the NYT making a political issue (youth, crime, race, poverty) out of a rape case. I just don't think it's really appropriate. There are better rape cases if that's what the NYT wants to cover and there are less inflamatory issues if you want to make a case about youth, crime, race, and poverty.

Polonius wrote:And actually, distinguishing cases based on facts is how you do it, unless you're using the term distinguish to mean something different than we do in law. To distinguish a case, you show that while there is precedent for an issue, you have facts that are different enough from that precdent that a judge should not follow the precedent.

When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

biccat wrote:I agree that this is the NYT making a political issue (youth, crime, race, poverty) out of a rape case. I just don't think it's really appropriate. There are better rape cases if that's what the NYT wants to cover and there are less inflamatory issues if you want to make a case about youth, crime, race, and poverty.

Polonius wrote:And actually, distinguishing cases based on facts is how you do it, unless you're using the term distinguish to mean something different than we do in law. To distinguish a case, you show that while there is precedent for an issue, you have facts that are different enough from that precdent that a judge should not follow the precedent.

When the law is against you, argue the facts.
When the facts are against you, argue the law.
When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.

You gotta do what you gotta do.

One thing to consider about the Texas story: I think the town really is blaming the victim, or at least worrying more about the perpetrators, and the Times is reporting that.

Polonius wrote:One thing to consider about the Texas story: I think the town really is blaming the victim, or at least worrying more about the perpetrators, and the Times is reporting that.

Totally agree. Which is why the article appears to be taking sides.

The NYT story isn't "girl raped," the story is "racial tension in Texas."

Is it a question of racial tension? IIRC the original story didn't discuss the race of anybody involved.

I dunno, a story about "why the hell that many people would all decide to rape an 11 year old girl" would get my attention.

Non NYT stories are about that Polonius. The "alleged" attackers are African American, the girl was Mexican American.

I'm surprised a follow on bloodbath has not started.

Polonius wrote:Is it a question of racial tension? IIRC the original story didn't discuss the race of anybody involved.

I dunno, a story about "why the hell that many people would all decide to rape an 11 year old girl" would get my attention.

What Frazzled said.

See this ABC News story.

Anyone else feel guilty that Gailbraithe isn't here to 'enjoy' this thread with us?

Albatross wrote:Anyone else feel guilty that Gailbraithe isn't here to 'enjoy' this thread with us?

I know I am. I'll have to drown my sorrows in potatoes. (skips to other thread)

Albatross wrote:Anyone else feel guilty that Gailbraithe isn't here to 'enjoy' this thread with us?

His reactions would have been most amusing indeed. As would his increasingly creative ways to circumvent the language filters.

AvatarForm wrote:
However, the remainder of your posts do not address mine directly, thus, should not be aimed at my post. Please learn to quote/reference your responses correctly if not directly addressing them.

You must be a devil of a conversationalist.

Discussion often meanders as people are reminded of topics that relate to certain comments that are made. This is why I brought up the issue of blame, in general, when you made a comment that appeared to be about blame, in general. I'm not sure why you took that to be contrarian, or competitive, instead of simply either following the thread of conversation, or ignoring the interjection. I have some ideas as to why that happened, though none of them are especially flattering.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:

Albatross wrote:Anyone else feel guilty that Gailbraithe isn't here to 'enjoy' this thread with us?

His reactions would have been most amusing indeed. As would his increasingly creative ways to circumvent the language filters.

I could probably do a faux G-baby if pressed, complete with wrote arguments from competition.

A Moderator wrote:Guys, you should all know the rule that we are not allowed to speak ill of a former member who is not around to defend himself.

In the words of Monty Python:

WE'VE FOUND A VICTIM, CAN WE BLAME HER?

Ah, yes... rape cases. The most difficult crime to deal with. You have to fight through all the emotional fall out to find the facts. Too much emotion, I don't like it. Need rational thought. Need LOGIC!! *Takes out pipe, some fine tobacco, Ahhh, so relaxing*

Let's see:

Alleged victim: 11 year old girl
Alleged predators: 18 teenage boys.
Where? Abandoned trailer house
Why? No one knows.

Is the victim's past sexual behavior (IF ANY!) relevant? Only if the alleged victim is known for a manipulative personality and pathological lying.

Were there any signs of struggle? Bruises on the girl?

Mrs. Stompa wrote:I understand these things...I do! And I'll begrudgingly agree. However, not in this case. Why? because the little girl was 11. 11 years old. I don't know if an 11 year old girl really has a concept of the horrible things that can happen to little girls. I don't know if she could have quite grasped why certain cituations are dangerous. It probably didn't even cross her mind. Likely she was dressing in a manner that she saw all around her and thought it would make per pretty and popular.

Ah, okay. I thought in mentioning women getting grabbed and other things you were talking about rape in general, not just in the case of this 11 year old girl or 11 year old girls in general.

In terms of very young girls I agree entirely, there is nothing they should expected to do to protect themselves from things like this, because they shouldn't be aware of it in the first place. There's things there parents should do, but that's about the sum of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Important questions like:

"These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives" - will these poor kids ever get over gang-raping this child?

That question was not a theme in the article. It was a comment made by one of the residents, and it is simply absurd to read it in the tone of 'will these poor kids ever get over gang-raping this child?'

"The whereabouts of the victim and her mother were not made public." - why can't we badger her with personal questions?

Another piece of very poor reading on your part. That line was included in a paragraph explaining that the events of the attack are largely unknown.

There is no indication that the author believes he or any other members of the press have a right to badger the girl.

"The arrests have left many wondering who will be taken into custody next." - those darn police, just rounding up black kids.

The actual theme there is 'how many people in our town were involved in this event?', which is not only a perfectly sensible, but a completely rational thing to ask.

I don't even know where you got the race angle from. That's just a bizarre reading.

"The students who were arrested have not returned to school, and it is unclear if they ever will." - will these poor boys ever get back to school?

Again, that's not a question the article actually poses. It's an explanation of part of the on-going process of what is happening.

Also, I'm glad I could provide you with your daily two-minute hate. Maybe next time you could try reading the whole post before making ridiculous personal attacks. Just a suggestion.

I read the whole article. I read it plainly, not looking to invent any kind subtext that I could then get outraged over.

You didn't. You picked out individual sentences and invented whole meanings for them which plainly are not in the article. It has resulted in you posting gibberish and looking silly, once again.

And I'd recommend you give up on the Orwell references, because you've used it very poorly there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Of course it's sensationalist journalism. There are a lot of rape cases out there, and they all carry with them the quesion of "why would someone do such a thing?" I think it's quite obvious that the Times picked up this story not because of the crime, but because of the identity of the victim and (accused) perpetrators. More specifically, because it's a race and poverty issue.

It's about the gang rape of an 11 year old girl. It is a particularly horrific rape.