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.

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.