Samalander Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Because the big question is "What kind of lies make the consent given not valid?".Extremely simple: The kind of lies that make consent given not valid are the kind of lies without which there would have been no consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Extremely simple: The kind of lies that make consent given not valid are the kind of lies without which there would have been no consent.Precisely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Extremely simple: The kind of lies that make consent given not valid are the kind of lies without which there would have been no consent.And none of those are provable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Because the big question is "What kind of lies make the consent given not valid?".The kind where she would not have given it otherwise. Its been pretty well defined. Maybe he can counter sue her for racism if he likes, but this case is whether she would have consented or not if he had told the truth. If he wasn't married, it might be a more clear cut case, but he was. This is my point - it really is more complicated, and if you can't be bothered to even acknowledge that but instead keep repeating the same two sentences over and over, whats the point? I'll take pithy over boring, mate, and when I find arguing over Israel with you too bloody tedious to bother with, it might be time for a reconsideration of what you're managing to bring to the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 And none of those are provable.Eh? It's the standard used for fraud (and indeed a ton of other legal stuff) constantly.It's a pretty well-established criteria for deception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Eh? It's the standard used for fraud (and indeed a ton of other legal stuff) constantly.It's a pretty well-established criteria for deception.No, it's not. There is nothing well-established about what does or does not turn someone on from one case to another. There is no way to tell. She very well may have known the truth about everything, and the badness of it made her hot.It's her word against his; but he is an Arab.Consensual sex is consensual sex is consensual sex. Buyer fucking beware. Calling this man a rapist is demeaning to every woman who has actually suffered rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Eh? It's the standard used for fraud (and indeed a ton of other legal stuff) constantly.It's a pretty well-established criteria for deception.He said/she said, he assumed/she meant, etc, is what a hell of a lot of rape cases come down to all the time, world over too. There is no way to tell. She very well may have known the truth about everything, and the badness of it made her hot.Thats just distatesful: Woman cries rape - hey, silly bitch just changed her mind, you know she probably wanted it all along. In just about any rape case where there weren't any witnesses theres a degree of assuming the victim isn't flat out lying - we generally tend to give them that benefit of the doubt. Why is this instance specifically different? I agree the law is going too far (You guys don't seem to get just how bloody mindedly conservative Jerusalem in particular can be though. I'm reading this law as an opportunity for a paternalistic fuck-you to premarital sex in general: you thought you were having a fun quickie, but you were RAPED/RAPING. Hah!) but its going too far in general, not in this instance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 And none of those are provable.That's why there is a whole process to try and get at the truth of the matter where even the complainant can be questioned. What is the name for such a process...it's on the tip of my tongue...there is definately a "t" in it...oh, yeah - a trial! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 That's why there is a whole process to try and get at the truth of the matter where even the complainant can be questioned. What is the name for such a process...it's on the tip of my tongue...there is definately a "t" in it...oh, yeah - a trial!And no trial of an Arab is, ever has been, or ever could be fair in Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 He said/she said, he assumed/she meant, etc, is what a hell of a lot of rape cases come down to all the time, world over too.And in any single case where this is true, a jury errs on the side of the defendant. Unless he's a dirty fucking Arab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 No, it's not. There is nothing well-established about what does or does not turn someone on from one case to another. There is no way to tell. She very well may have known the truth about everything, and the badness of it made her hot.It's her word against his; but he is an Arab.Consensual sex is consensual sex is consensual sex. Buyer fucking beware. Calling this man a rapist is demeaning to every woman who has actually suffered rape.It's a well-established cause for fraud (and various other kind of breaches and deceptions) If you lie about the particulars of an agreement you are invalidating the consent of the other party. (assuming the lie was relevant to the transation, it's *probably* not relevant if you lied about the international status of TIbet while selling somone a cucumber from Mexico) Same thing here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Maybe so, but apparantly it is the law of the land. You want me to start going over all the crazy laws of your country?Feel free. Where are we if people can't complaint about stupid laws. This is truly a moronic law, almost as bad as the other you mentioned about not allowing secular weddings in Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Extremely simple: The kind of lies that make consent given not valid are the kind of lies without which there would have been no consent.So you believe the law should support and uphold racism?It's a well-established cause for fraud (and various other kind of breaches and deceptions) If you lie about the particulars of an agreement you are invalidating the consent of the other party. (assuming the lie was relevant to the transation, it's *probably* not relevant if you lied about the international status of TIbet while selling somone a cucumber from Mexico) Same thing here.And how is race relevant?You know, unless the person in question is a fucking racist.I'll take pithy over boring, mate, and when I find arguing over Israel with you too bloody tedious to bother with, it might be time for a reconsideration of what you're managing to bring to the debate.:lol:Yes, of course. You'd see this as me attacking Israel and not the blatant racism.I don't give a shit which country this came from. Your comment here just reveals your own stupid biases. Get the fuck over yourself and your martyr complex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 It's a well-established cause for fraud (and various other kind of breaches and deceptions) If you lie about the particulars of an agreement you are invalidating the consent of the other party. A fuck is not a contract or an agreement. No goods were bartered or changed hands. Your entire argument is based on semantics and not on human reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 And no trial of an Arab is, ever has been, or ever could be fair in Israel.Sure, especially when the judge is an Arab. Those guys really discriminate against Arabs. Oh, you didn't know we had Arab judges in Isrtael?And in any single case where this is true, a jury errs on the side of the defendant. Unless he's a dirty fucking Arab.There are no juries in Israel. just Judges.So you believe the law should support and uphold racism?The law should support and uphold a woman's free will. Whatever form it might take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 A fuck is not a contract or an agreement. No goods were bartered or changed hands. Your entire argument is based on semantics and not on human reality.Yes, i is an agreement. Otherwise it is, well, rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samalander Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You guys seem to be forgetting something. The man pled guilty in a plea bargain. Including allocution of facts. Only when he got his ass handed to him in the sentence did he start crying foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The law should support and uphold a woman's free will. Whatever form it might take.Just like the law should support and uphold a women's free will to do business or hire whom she chooses?You guys seem to be forgetting something. The man pled guilty in a plea bargain. Including allocution of facts. Only when he got his ass handed to him in the sentence did he start crying foul. What does this have to do with anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datepalm Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Just like the law should support and uphold a women's free will to do business or hire whom she chooses?So if I refuse to have sex with you (this should not be surprising, really) am I now guilty of racism against canadians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stego Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Yes, i is an agreement. Otherwise it is, well, rape.If you must call it an agreement, then call it an informal, non-binding agreement. Almost always oral or even unspoken. A sexual agreement relies on the honor of the individuals and is no way enforceable by law. (If assault takes place, that is a different matter entirely.)see: gentlemans agreement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.