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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's one in 20,000 in the USA, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation.

Ok. Let's translate that into table top game terminology.

That translates to consecutive results of 1 on:

A d20, a d10, another d10 and then another d10.

Let's suppose you're a betting man (or woman):

What are you putting your money on? Rolling that, or not rolling that?

A reasonable man wouldn't go for the use of force straight away at all.

Again, to be perfectly clear, the "reasonable person" test, to my mind, has different applications in different circumstances. The standards of reasonableness are simply different in different cases:

You should have a greater reasonable expectation of harm if you grab a very young or very old person.

You should have a greater reasonable expectation of harm if you grab a patient in the hospital.

You should have a greater reasonable expectation of harm if you grab someone with a known medical condition.

The lady reporter was none of those things.

And you should above all else have a reasonable expectation that the use of force for your own ends is absolutely unacceptable outside of self-defence, full stop.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A reasonable man wouldn't go for the use of force straight away at all.

I completely agree.

That still doesn't make the charge non-trivial.

Say what you want, but there are different degrees of force.

If I push x, that's force.
If I grab x, that's force.
If I slap x, that's force.
If I punch x, that's force.
If I kick x, that's force.
If I poke x, that's force

And then I could even go into all of the possible body parts that I could push, grab, slap, punch and kick and all of the different ways that I could do these things.

If I kick x in the gonads, that's force.
If I slap x in the face, that's force.
If I grab x by the throat, that's force.
If I grab x by the shoulder, that's force.
If I punch x in the throat, that's force.
If I poke x in the shoulder, that's force.
If I poke x in the eyes, that's force.

And then I could even start talking about degrees of force.

How hard did I kick x in the gonads? How hard did I slap x in the face while screaming that I'm Rick James?

Yes, a reasonable person would not have resorted to the use of force as a first measure. I agree. That said, some uses of force are more serious than others, and others are more trivial than others.

Our man used a trivial amount of force. That makes the charge trivial. That's why I hold the woman reporter in contempt.

Blaming the victim is the OT thing to do, so there is that.

 d-usa wrote:
Blaming the victim is the OT thing to do, so there is that.

Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.

At any rate, I'm not blaming the victim for being victimized. I'm not denying that she was a victim.

Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.

It is not the level of force that is important, it's the principle. Society does not tolerate selfish use of violence because the monopoly of violence is one of the linchpins of modern society.

And before the inevitable comparison to marijuana laws, ignoring them does not cause society to crumble.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
It is not the level of force that is important, it's the principle. Society does not tolerate selfish use of violence because the monopoly of violence is one of the linchpins of modern society.

I wish to note the following:

1. As stated, this would make all instantiations of criminal violence equal before the eyes of the law in terms of criminality. There would be no difference between pimp slapping someone in the side of the head, on the one hand, and shooting someone in the face, on the other hand.

In point of fact, this is not true.

In fact:

1.1: Why should assault (i.e., the threat of violence) be considered any different from battery (actual violence) before the eyes of the law, if it is the principle alone that counts?

2. As stated, this would require that the State press charges in all cases of battery, whether or not the victim wishes to do so. At least in certain jurisdictions in the US, this simply is not the case.

And before the inevitable comparison to marijuana laws, ignoring them does not cause society to crumble.

Failing to press charges on trivial unjust uses of force (e.g., poking somebody in the shoulder who didn't want to be poked or grabbing somebody's arm who didn't wish to be grabbed) doesn't cause society to crumble either.

The reporter wasn't in fear for her life after the incident. She was butt hurt. There's a world of difference.

Traditio wrote:
Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.

Yeah it could be that, or it could, you know... Be an actual thing.

At any rate, I'm not blaming the victim for being victimized. I'm not denying that she was a victim.

No, you're just saying she shouldn't have any legal recourse for being a victim because you don't think what happened is that big of a deal. I would say that probably worse.

That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.

Yeah they have, you just seem incredibly resilient to facts or common sense and not because anything you've said is as logically sound as you seem to think it is.

Traditio wrote:


Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.

In the words of the great man himself, Homer Simpson, that's for the courts to decide!

As you say, he is accused of committing a crime. Wether you consider it to be trivial or not is irrelevant. It is now down to the police and courts to decide if his actions were reasonable or criminal. The reporter has every right to press charges. She obviously feels she was assaulted. It is not up to you to say that she is being reasonable or not, only she can make that choice.

Traditio wrote:

Failing to press charges on trivial unjust uses of force (e.g., poking somebody in the shoulder who didn't want to be poked or grabbing somebody's arm who didn't wish to be grabbed) doesn't cause society to crumble either.

The reporter wasn't in fear for her life after the incident. She was butt hurt. There's a world of difference.

She was, apparently, left with bruising. This is much higher than being poked in the arm. She may not have feared for her life, but that does not make it not assault. It may not cause society to crumble, but there is an issue that someone used their size and strength to force their will on someone who was doing something quite legal. There is not just an issue of the suffering or fear, but also the fact that she was a reporter doing her job and was prevented from doing that just because she was smaller and weaker (or just less willing to use force).

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Did you watch the Town Hall? Dude is either a moron on foreign affairs, or the people who are advising him are. I thought Kasich was unusually strong. These town halls are alot better than debates IMO. It's hard for someone to fudge knowledge on issues through an entire hour of grilling.

Everyone backed off their pledge to support the eventual Republican nominee.....everyone of them.

Cruz and Kasich were decent.

Trump was a disaster.

I now really hope Cruz trounces him from here on out.

I actually thought Anderson Cooper had the best line of the night. "That's the answer of a 5 year old child."

Traditio wrote:


Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.

Okay, well then that is just your opinion man. But everybody here thinks you are wrong, the police think you are wrong, and the DA thinks you are wrong. So you can continue to have your opinion that it is a trivial matter. But we all disagree with you. Take from that what you will.

Enjoy your opinion and have a nice day, we are no longer interested in your argument, you will not persuade us.

Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.

Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.

Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?

I'm not surprised after things went down to the gutter. I don't believe it was particularly fair for Fox News to put them on the spot like that. IIRC, it was the very first question of the very first debate. I mean, they're the media bureau of the Republican Party, so it doesn't surprise me that they did it, but the silly pledges should just be dropped once and for all. They just make everyone look bad (a) for making the pledge in the first place, and (b) when things turn to gak and they back off their pledge.

Traditio wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's one in 20,000 in the USA, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation.

Ok. Let's translate that into table top game terminology.

That translates to consecutive results of 1 on:

A d20, a d10, another d10 and then another d10.

Let's suppose you're a betting man (or woman):

What are you putting your money on? Rolling that, or not rolling that?

You think it's acceptable to assault people because the chance of hitting someone who is particularly vulnerable is fairly low?

The law disagrees with you.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.

Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?

I think the original intent was to nab Trump in a pledge to support the "eventual" establishment candidate and thus bring over his small army of worshipers. It wasn't as obvious then that what Trump says is what Trump supporters believe but the GOP was gravy if they got Trump to say he supports his opponent.

Problem is that Trump came out on top so now the GOP establishment has to back pedal to get out of their agreement. Which will inevitably work against them because yet again they have gone against their word. Trump will be able to play that up as someone who doesn't go against his word (lol).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's one in 20,000 in the USA, according to the National Hemophilia Foundation.

Dayum... it's more common than I thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Blaming the victim is the OT thing to do, so there is that.

Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.

At any rate, I'm not blaming the victim for being victimized. I'm not denying that she was a victim.

Literally all that I'm asserting is that the degree to which she was victimized is trivial, and that, given the trivial nature of the offense, her insistence on pressing charges is unreasonable on her part. That's all I'm saying, and nobody in this thread has in any way, shape or form even made a modest attempt to provide arguments against it.

Hey man... see my avatar. Chillax.

I regularly butt heads with d-usa and scooty.... but, they're both right.

In the context of the law, the "unreasonable" aspect of this doesn't factor in on whether Cory *may* have broken the law. It's really up to the DA to determine if they move forward.

I get the sense that all of this could be resolve had Cory privately apologized to her and bought her a drink. But, no... he chose to go a different route. So, it's NOT just about the incident... but, also how they handled it afterwards.

Legal issue aside... when a frontrunner staff is apparently physically aggressive to a female reporter who's doing her job AND the staff is defended by said frontrunner, just imagine what it'd be like with these people in power.

I'm hoping that Trumps popularity in the US, however marginal it might be, serves as kind of a wake up call to our European allies. There's a growing sentiment that the US should no longer act as a shield against Eastern aggression, and quite frankly, I don't think Europe is institutionally capable of defending itself militarily. With Brussels, there's now a concern that Europe is institutionally incapable of even policing themselves, which is one of the most basic functions of government.

This is serious stuff people.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Can we move on, please? My finger is sore from scrolling through over two pages of posts discussing something that has nothing to do with politics.

Anyway, is anybody really surprised that all three have backed off from that pledge to blindly support the nominee?

Not really because I don't believe the non-Trumpers ever believed that Trump would still be making some noise at this stage.

And frankly, Trump has been a complete disaster and even *I* would walkback that October pledge. 'Cuz, feth him.

This isn't the first time this manager has grabbed people (recall him allegedly grabbing some guy by the neck...?)

http://m.mic.com/articles/138391/trump-campaign-denies-manager-corey-lewandowski-grabbed-protester-s-neck#.UKK5aP49J

Look a little more at him and perhaps you will see why he is Trump's darling.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/17/11256728/donald-trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski

Traditio wrote:
What seems to me the most probable answer, sebster, is that the police "went this far" because what the man did is technically illegal. It is against the law to grab somebody's arm like that and force them to move in those circumstances. That's illegal. That's battery. There's no question about it.

No, you don't understand the discretion available to police and prosecutors, and you're ignoring as I explain that discretion to you.

The police don't press charges everytime someone walks in with a case that's technically legitimate. They are not slaves to any random off the street. They get to apply judgement.

They have applied judgement in this case and decided to press charges. Why is a good question, and the only answer we can safely rule out is 'they have no choice because it technically meets the law'.

The arrest of the campaign manager is a farce. She had her hand on Trump, and the campaign manager was basically saying back up. The video doesn't back up her first statement on what happened. Even still, she's acting like a diva.

I am not totally on board with Trump but I have to admit that out of the five remaining candidates, he is the only one who continuously says some of the things I feel, even tho his delivery is poor. I dont think he has any long term policy ideas worked out, and just sort of has a general sense of what he would like to do, even if he doesn't understand what power the presidency actually has. He'll get a reality check.

But I am over the Clintons and Hillary in particular. Sanders is out of his mind. Kasich is going nowhere, and Cruz is crazy. I have been wondering how a President with a background in business would do since Ross Perot. I think Trump is actually more moderate than he has been saying, and I am on board with that.

Traditio wrote:
Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.

No, 'victim blaming' is a running joke on dakka, after some crazy a while back tepeated ot over and over again.

I knoe it can be hard to pick up on the culture of a board when you first join, but maybe less shouty reactionary posting, and more reading could help you.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'm hoping that Trumps popularity in the US, however marginal it might be, serves as kind of a wake up call to our European allies. There's a growing sentiment that the US should no longer act as a shield against Eastern aggression, and quite frankly, I don't think Europe is institutionally capable of defending itself militarily. With Brussels, there's now a concern that Europe is institutionally incapable of even policing themselves, which is one of the most basic functions of government.

This is serious stuff people.

I agree with this, especially when they don't spend the required 2% of GDP on defense. Every time Putin says 'Boo!', we have to rush over 4 or so fighters to show solidarity with our European allies. Rather than the US sending fighters to Poland, why doesn't France and Germany?

Besides, we're going to have our hands full in the South China Sea soon. The Europeans are going to have to learn to fend for themselves.

 sebster wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Empty liberal rhetoric. Nothing more, nothing less. "Victim blaming" is just another liberal buzz word of the day.

No, 'victim blaming' is a running joke on dakka, after some crazy a while back tepeated ot over and over again.

I knoe it can be hard to pick up on the culture of a board when you first join, but maybe less shouty reactionary posting, and more reading could help you.

I believe the exact quote was "BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM! BLAME THE VICTIM!" repeated for a few pages.

Either way, victim blaming is an actual concept, not just "empty liberal rhetoric". It was, for a long time, one of the main means of defence against a rape accusation. Luckily that time has mostly passed.

Kilkrazy wrote:You think it's acceptable to assault people because the chance of hitting someone who is particularly vulnerable is fairly low?

The law disagrees with you.

1. I scarcely would call the odds "fairly low." Once again, I want you to call to mind the tabletop gaming equivalent:

You have to roll ALL ONES on 1d20 and 3d10.

What kind of bets would you be willing to take on the assumption that you WON'T roll all 1s on those dice?

2. As I've repeatedly insisted, at no point did I claim that it's OK to assault anyone for those, or any other, reasons. I've repeatedly insisted that the actions of the campaign manager, in the absence of any other considerations, constitute a criminal act and was unreasonable/unacceptable [thus my great annoyance at repeatedly having the argument brought against me by the liberals on this forum that battery is illegal and that his act constituted battery].

The only claim that I've made is that, in the extremely unlikely event that she would have been a hemophiliac or had some other serious, rare medical condition, about which he could not have possibly have known, that her subsequent injury wouldn't make his act more unreasonable, wouldn't aggravate his crime, in my view. It certainly should have increased his civil liability, and rightly so, but I think it would be unreasonable to claim that he would have done something seriously criminal.

The grabbing would have been intentional. The breaking of her arm or the causing of internal bleeding would have been completely unforeseeable and unintended.

Ultimately, I am arguing on the basis of St. Thomas Aquinas' philosophy of law. All good law [as also its application] should accord with and be founded upon right reason. [I understand that liberals, of course, will disagree with this; liberals are generally voluntarists; thus the reason that there generally just ain't no talking sense into one; it's interesting, furthermore, to note that they share this feature, i.e., of being voluntarists, with Muslims (perhaps partly explaining their apparent affinity for Muslims). The only difference, of course, is that whereas Muslims say that their deity can do and command whatever he wants, the liberals assert that they can do whatever they want.]

There is no sense in which his act would have been more contrary to right reason because of the subsequent injury. It would have been unforeseeable and unintended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:Either way, victim blaming is an actual concept, not just "empty liberal rhetoric". It was, for a long time, one of the main means of defence against a rape accusation. Luckily that time has mostly passed.

In this context, and in most contexts, I wager, in which liberals throw out the term, it's empty liberal rhetoric.

Liberal: "So and so was raped. How horrible! Poor girl!"
Me: "I fully agree that's very bad; however, I do have this question: why was she, a scantily clad stripper, consuming excessive alcohol at a fraternity house party? Why was she there alone/unattended? Did she really not think that was a bad idea?"
Liberal: "Oh, sure, just blame the victim!"

As with many things the liberals say, it's nice sounding set of words designed to obfuscate things and shut down the arguments without actually having to talk about the matter at hand. It's ultimately just one more means of liberals saying "BOO!" and sticking their fingers in their ears.

Thus, if the "blame the victim" bit earlier in the thread was merely a continuance of the joke previously alluded to, then mea culpa, of course.

But I can realistically see liberals throwing this term out in this context.

Me: "Yes, she was battered, I guess, technically. In a trivial way. Is this really big enough of a deal for her to call the cops? Seems pretty lame, bro."
Liberal: "VICTIM BLAMING!!!! I NEED MAH SAFE SPACES AND TRIGGER WARNINGS!!!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:In the context of the law, the "unreasonable" aspect of this doesn't factor in on whether Cory *may* have broken the law.

This point simply isn't in dispute.

It's really up to the DA to determine if they move forward.

That depends on the laws of the given jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, the victim retains the right to press (and drop) charges in a battery incident.

I get the sense that all of this could be resolve had Cory privately apologized to her and bought her a drink. But, no... he chose to go a different route. So, it's NOT just about the incident... but, also how they handled it afterwards.

As I said. She's butt hurt. That's what it all comes down to.

That is exactly what blaming the victim IS. The point is nothing about what a woman dresses like or drinks had any blame for her getting raped. The only one who is to blame is the rapist. Full stop.

 skyth wrote:
That is exactly what blaming the victim IS. The point is nothing about what a woman dresses like or drinks had any blame for her getting raped. The only one who is to blame is the rapist. Full stop.

See, this is what makes it empty liberal rhetoric. It's not a well-reasoned reply to the concern at hand. It's a sheer rhetorical flourish designed to shut people down; it's a mere propaganda tool.

The moment that you say "victim blaming," you have stopped talking to me. You've started talking past me in order to beat a rhetorical propaganda drum.

Yes, nobody should commit rape. Yes, the blame for rape lies squarely on the rapist (as efficient cause).

Doesn't change the fact that our half naked stripper made an incredibly stupid (as well as immoral) choice and should not have put herself in that situation in the first place. She should have known better.

But of course, the liberals won't hear anything about this last part. The idea of a woman actually having a responsibility to conduct herself in a respectable and reasonable way? Anathema

In what way is "a scantily clad stripper, consuming excessive alcohol at a fraternity house party" immoral?

Are people not allowed to drink? Is it the fact she's not wearing much? The interacting with people of the opposite sex outside of marriage? What is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
The idea of a woman actually having a responsibility to conduct herself in a respectable and reasonable way? Anathema

I know, it's almost as weird as the expectation of a presidential campaign manager actually having a responsibility to conduct himself in a respectable and reasonable way, without breaking the law. Inconceivable!