blackangst1
Lifer
Why would it matter? Has nothing to do with the fact that a guy who is attracted to someone over AOC is being labled a pedo for it. If she was 12 it would be a different story altogether.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Guy gets 30 years for taking naked pics of 17 year old relative
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Why would it matter? Has nothing to do with the fact that a guy who is attracted to someone over AOC is being labled a pedo for it. If she was 12 it would be a different story altogether.
blackangst1
Lifer
Whats the strawman? YOU labled him a pedo despite the facts. G'damn youre stupid. Infantry?
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
No, Special Air Service, cheers from Afghanistan dimwit. (Not implying that infantry are stupid, that's all on blackangst1)
You responded to a specific answer with a strawman, does that help further your arguement or doesn't even apply to what you were replying to, namely that "if" and "maybe" in the context you were using them DOES imply something.
Go get your head screwed on straight and realise that as a discussion progresses arguments get left behind and if you want to reply to them you should quote them instead of random quotes and reply with something that makes no sense.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Sex offenders are NEVER one time offenders, they should all be chemically castrated for their own good and for the good of others around them. And no pills either, you go get a shot and you pay for it, once every two weeks is enough.
Or let them choose between that and a bullet to the neo cortex.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Actually, i meant to say "Getting a 17 year old drunk and using her isn't rape"?
Which it is in Britain and i agree with that law.
Sorry for that.
I have no respect for people like this 34 year old, i have a great deal of respect for life but for me, you don't just get to live and do as you please, at some point you lose all your rights.
But you wouldn't know shit about that Craig, i've seen your posts before and while i think you are a generally good man, i think you are too fucking naive.
Some people are just not meant to be alive, this 34 year old is one of those men.
shira
Diamond Member
In New York state, the age of consent is 17. A 43-year-old man having consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl in New York state is completely, totally legal.
Now, if a man got a 17-year-old drunk and then had sex with her when it was clear she hadn't given consent, that would be rape. But it would also be rape if a man got a 45-year old woman drunk and had non-consensual sex with her.
"Age of consent" means just that. In most states, 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex.
And all this is beside the point. There's no allegation that the man had sex with the girl. He might have committed "non consensual nude photography," but that's not rape.
The absurdity of all this is that the penalty for rape is LESS than the penalty for non-consensual nude photography. If you can't understand how unjust that is, you're even more clueless than your "let the father decide" argument is.
shira
Diamond Member
In New York state, the age of consent is 17. A 43-year-old man having consensual sex with a 17-year-old girl in New York state is completely, totally legal.
Now, if a man got a 17-year-old drunk and then had sex with her when it was clear she hadn't given consent, that would be rape. But it would also be rape if a man got a 45-year old woman drunk and had non-consensual sex with her.
"Age of consent" means just that. In most states, 17-year-olds can legally consent to sex.
And all this is beside the point. There's no allegation that the man had sex with the girl. He might have committed "non consensual nude photography," but that's not rape.
The absurdity of all this is that the penalty for rape is LESS than the penalty for non-consensual nude photography. If you can't understand how unjust that is, you're even more clueless than your "let the father decide" argument is.
Edit: Let me make this simple enough that even retards like you can understand:
You're the father of a 17-year old girl. You have two choices:
A: A man will get your daughter drunk and have sex with her against her will.
B: A man will get your daughter drunk and take nude photos of her against her will.
You have a choice of those two evils. Are you saying you prefer A to B?
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
Can you even GIVE legal consent when you're a drunken teenage girl in US law? You can't in UK. Consent has to be given actively.
Don't forget that it's more to this case than this particular girl, they found photos of child pornography.
Sexual abuse of a minor without consent is the same as rape in the UK, as i don't know how it works in the US i can't really tell you what the actual charge is but i assume it's the same.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
He'd never be found again regardless of A or B, i can tell you that much.
gingermeggs
Golden Member
I think it's a good base line for other charges.
white collar crimes should be death!
DivideBYZero
Lifer
17 year old girls are incapable of being horny?
Well that completely addresses my point on that. We agree that intoxicating anyone, 17 or otherwise, to the point they can't consent, makes it rape.
I am proud to be called naive, because I think that it's wrong but reflects how some people see my pushing for higher standards, for better things. It's one of the best 'attacks' to get.
I am one of those people who tells others who litter, who drive unsafely, who otherwise act in ways I view as immoral, my view in hopes of improving things. So, I get that a lot.
I actually agree at some point you lose your right, but I draw that line at a far different place than you do. Take people hostage and threaten their lives, you have crossed it.
I'm glad to hear you say you respect life. Whether I agree you do or not, that's a big part of it, just that you think you do.
It seems to me that most in your situation become far too desensitized to violence. I recall a story that might make your head explode: early on, Yassir Arafat had a group of terrorists, young men, who had the usual indoctrination and training for violence. He shifted strategies away from terrorism, and notices that in that situation, such men are often viewed as a public menace - and killed or at least jailed. He and other leaders made an effort to look for a better way, and created a program to re-socialize the terrorists, and actually get them married, and asked women to volunteer, as a service to the state, for such marriage - and reportedly, the program worked great, the men became normal, domesticated people, but it took someone 'naive' enough to value their lives enough to make the effort (I'm not endorsing or commenting on his other actions, just using this example).
It's the typical fate of soldiers to fight the enemy in front of them without understanding the underlying source of the conflict. Soldiers fight for their brothers in arms, for 'honor', for compensation, for a variety of things, but how many soldiers in Vietnam understoof the role of the war in our domestic politics on European colonization and other pressures? How many serving in Iraq understand the history there? You are fighting religious extremists, how many of your fellow soldiers understand the history of British imperialism creating the modern day extremist groups as a tactic for splitting the enemy against the nationalists Britain was trying to overcome - the sort of thing Lawrence of Arabia was famously disgusted by after leading rebels and believing Britain betrayed them?
It's not naive to try to look for better ways to resolve issues, with more justice and less violence. It might even save some lives like yours, whether or not you want the help.
You seem to have views which have narrowly decided the justness of your violence, and they are probably legitimate in a narrow sense. But narrow isn't good enough, IMO.
We are in agreement some punishment is needed for this guy's behavior towards the girl. I'm in favor of far more moderat punishment than you, and of looking to prevention.
Because I value her life, his life, your life.
I understand some view that as naive. I do not, but I expect that reaction.
There is no objective resolution to our different approaches. Both 'work', just as all kinds of harsh systems have 'worked', slavery 'worked' for millenia.
People thought Lincoln was naive, the Kennedys were naive, Nelson Mandela was naive, Ghandi was naive, Martin Luthe rKing, Jr. was naive. That's how improvement looks.
blackangst1
Lifer
Well, that, I think, everyone can agree on. Nice backtrack BTW. But as Ive said earlier, the report says "drunk" but we really dont know what that means. If it was a few beers or margaritas or something, consent could have easily been given. Also as Ive said, if it was 20, thats a different story. Im not sure what your problem is, but I brought up the same points shira did, and you come out all guns blazing yet with his post you claim to have meant something else. Dont be such a prick, man.
I think you're missing his point. Sure both are bad, but I think most people can reasonably agree that raping someone is worse than taking nude pictures of them when they are drunk. In this case however, it seems like the guy would have been better off raping her, and that says to me that our justice system isn't correctly allocating punishments in proportion to the crime.
blackangst1
Lifer
And the point needs to be made we dont know what the article means by "drunk". As I've said, it could have been 2 drinks, could have been 20 and she was passed out, in which case it would be criminal what he did no matter what the age. We just dont know. I guess at least he provided alcohol for a minor, but I dont know about NY law about that. In some areas you can provide alcohol so long as its at home ( I believe).
blackangst1
Lifer
Youre just all in a tizzy because she's 17. You've already incorrectly labled him a pedophile for the act, and I think you and john of sheffield are confusing fatherly instincts with the law. Im sure if it was YOUR daughter you would be FAR more upset at her being 17 than if she was, say, 30. But its irrelevant-either way she's over AOC, and its not made clear whether or not she gave said consent. Nothing indicates it was AGAINST her consent.
shira
Diamond Member
More pseudo-brave talk from yet another liar (and fool).
Think about the lunacy of what you're spouting: To assuage your anger, you'd risk decades behind bars. That'd be the sure-fire way to make your damaged daughter whole again. Instead of comforting her, finding good treatment for the trauma, and letting the institutions of justice take care of the perp, you'd force your daughter to confront a second trauma.
Riiiiigggghhhht.
You guys with the tiny genitals crack me up.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Everyone is someone's daughter.
This guy did not rape anyone.
You can do whatever you want if someone were to rape your daughter; it won't make you 'right'.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
