Johnny DangerFace

Anyone have insight/reasons why Baltimore didn't keep Taylor? (Or did they try and he moved on to get his chance?)

But isn't that just the sexist culture we are in right now (huge issue)? Why the rape term? (Sincere questions lol)

I'm reporting you for child abuse. SORRY

I also think the areas of rape and offensive sexist culture are getting blurred together way too much. While there is some overlap and they effect one another, for the most they are two separate issues. The porn industry and violent porn is a very complicated topic, far too complex for me to try to tackle it for sure. But there can be absolutely nothing wrong with rape fantasy porn. And everything wrong with "normal" porn.

That's DOUBLE bonus points!

Good lord his floor could be low

I would be interested in seeing that Hoss but with 3rd round selections or higher. I view a pick in the first 3 rounds as a pretty big investment, but not so much for 4+

Yup, some SS posters are ready to oblige

It's an epidemic

Can you guys start announcing suspensions with video breakdowns?

I haven't seen a new poster here get treated poorly here for awhile as long as they didn't act like a complete troll. And the new posters that do act like trolls are almost exclusively duplicate accounts. I think this board has gotten much friendlier over the past year, and I think almost all the members here are extremely welcoming to new members and encourage them to post.

We only accuse the new posters of being other aliases when the clearly are :)

Lol uh huh. Ps I was including you Why people debate with you or JJ is beyond me. It's like arguing rape with someone from 1930. Apart from JJ, this thread was great and intellectual. Now it's a train wreck indeed

No kidding. It's funny because the posters who are making a fool of themselves are already known fools

Arguing that a victim is nothing more than a legal construct is absolutely ridiculous. Sorry Hate to break it to you, but if a word does have a legal definition, doesn't mean it can't have non-legal meanings either.

Why is there an insistence to use legal terms outside of a legal context? It makes no sense to me.

:w00t: :P

Yea but your line is so far off that for those who were murdered in unsolved crimes aren't victims. Or those brutally raped. Or those robbed...

Two more things. 1) I'v seen some people talk about the balance between innocence until proven guilty, and not doubting the accuser. The thought seems to be they are mutually exclusive, and you can't strongly believe both. This isn't true at all, and I think its worth talking about. The reason you think these are dependent on each other, and one takes from another, is because you are thinking of them on the same spectrum. However, when you think of these on two different spectrum, it makes much more sense. There is the court of law, where there is innocence until proven guilty. You can strongly believe that Kane gets that, and rightfully so. However, there is also the court of public opinion. And with factors such as sexual assault victim's rights, the sensitivity of the subject, and kane's maturity issues, it is perfectly okay to say "until i know more, i weigh more on the accuser's side than the accused side." It is fine to believe in both things, because there are two completely independent thoughts. Even if you are an investigator (accept that you have the burden of proof and kane is presumed innocent, but at the same time take the accuser's words as truth and fully investigate it). 2) For those wanting to shut down discussion of rape. Please understand you fall in the camp of people you cannot discuss rape with. This is because we cannot have a reasonable discussion with those who think any discussion is unreasonable. This is a big shame as it sounds like your intentions are really good and you heart is at the right place, so you are the exact type of people that should be at the discussion table. Rethink your position.

I remember during school, when the course topic was rape, the class could no longer have a meaningful discussion. Because if anyone said anything that could be twisted as offensive, a part of the class would jump on them. For example, regarding statutory rape, how dare anyone bring up the reasonableness of a mistake of age defense. Unfortunately that same phenemenon is at work here by some of you. Please consider that you attacking any reasonable discussion regarding rape that could be perverted as offensive, doesn't mean it should be twisted as offensive. Attacking reasonable discussion points is not defending women just because it is a sensitive topic, it's actually just shutting down an important talk that should be had. The culture and law regarding rape has realllllllllly far to go. It is something that should be talked and fought about. Accept that there will be some offensive people and ignore them. But shutting everyone down actually makes your voice less heard.

I don't think it actually matters at all in this case, as I don't believe New York allows a mistake of age defense. And my only point in posting this is that there has been some discussion about mistaking the age of the victim. No biggie

I think it was just food for thought. I can see how it can be taken as dismissive though. But I too could imagine a scenario if it was a statutory rape situation with patty kane and we all say "yeaaaaa but she looks 22 and lied about her age." That's all. I tend to not believe in the "innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to the meaningless court of opinion, and I generally give victim's the benefit of the doubt in sexual crimes.

I will say this. Traditionally states do not allow a mistake of fact defense regarding the victim's age in statutory rape situations. However, there is a "movement" to allow reasonable mistake of fact defenses in statutory rape cases. It is a minority of states (in the low 20s i believe). The majority of states still impose strict liability in statutory rape cases. So I wouldn't be so dismissive of JJ's hypothetical. I think it is more reasonable to allow a mistake of fact/age defense than not.

Ugh ok JJ. Nice passive aggressive insult coming from perhaps our most naive poster :)

They both are dead men walking