• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Stmt by His Father

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,228
975
126
No, you didn't get my point. To say something that mind-bogglingly insensitive to someone who is grieving is not something I should have to tell any adult with an ounce of common sense is a fucking stupid idea.

My point was also this: Something truly horrifying has happened to someone: they've been raped. You're taking the time to talk about them getting drunk. This implies that the important thing here is not that they were raped (which is not their fault by any stretch of the imagination), but that they made a silly mistake, and very definitely implies that if they could avoid being raped if they hadn't made that silly mistake, and is very definitely a case of you wanting to wag your finger at them instead of comforting a victim.



Yeah, you didn't get my point there either.

Victim-blamers will always find a way to blame the victim. Take the Cosby situation for example, the victim-blamers decided that the focus should be on his victims going to his hotel room rather than the fact that he spiked their drinks in order to get into their pants. Victim-blamers in my experience are never content with playing the role of Captain Obvious / the personification of the 'bargaining' stage of grief and trying to boil victims in their own grief as if they weren't managing that perfectly well themselves already, many of them will even go a step further and invent more reasons to vilify the victim (viper1j is an example of that in this thread, talking about her being a 'spoiled prom queen').

IMO it's mostly this fantasy that victim-blamers like to live in that if they live their lives in as wise and careful fashion as possible that they can avoid anything bad ever happening to them.

Surely you should be able to acknowledge that a risk-free lifestyle is a) not a life and b) not possible.



Aren't you critiquing your own point here? Someone has just been raped and you're talking to them about drinking, or wearing a short dress, or those heels, or going to a guy's room, or accepting a drink a guy has bought for them, or walking home alone at night, or rejecting a guy's advances bluntly or otherwise, or going on multiple dates with a guy and now he expects for her to have sex with him, or any number of other things that they should be able to do without getting raped.

The fact of the matter is you have no idea whether Brock Turner's victim's drink(s) was spiked (not necessarily by Brock Turner, some fuckwits think it's funny to do that or say help someone "loosen up" because they're so uptight generally), and yet you've spent pages upon pages arguing that people shouldn't get blackout drunk. Other possibilities like a conflict with medication or combination with food intolerance that they're not aware of. Yet you think you've still got a sufficient insight to cast judgement on them?

Furthermore, people don't generally choose to get blackout drunk. It could be that they haven't eaten recently enough for their metabolism to work through the alcohol as well as it usually does, or them having not enough experience with alcohol and say drinking as much as they usually do on a lively night out but in a shorter period of time. The one time I got blackout drunk it was because I made the mistake of trying to vaguely keep pace with a guy whose alcohol threshold was definitely higher than mine (I learnt in hindsight). I have no memory of the rest of the evening and threw up in my sleep. Do you really need I needed some stupid fuckwit who thinks they're worldly wise to tell me that was a bad idea? Now imagine that happening to someone and they got raped, and you're talking to them about the relative parking ticket.
You're using a lot of words to avoid simply telling someone "don't get blackout drunk."

Do you really need I needed some stupid fuckwit who thinks they're worldly wise to tell me that was a bad idea?
Evidently you did else it wouldn't have happened. If idiots knew they were idiots then they wouldn't do idiotic things (like you did) and we wouldn't need warning signs like this.

 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
12,915
2,482
126
You're using a lot of words to avoid simply telling someone "don't get blackout drunk."

Evidently you did else it wouldn't have happened.
Ok, when your reading comprehension level reaches that of a typical 10-year-old child, maybe we can have this conversation again.

In hindsight, I don't think a typical 10-year-old is as intellectually dishonest as you are.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,228
975
126
Ok, when your reading comprehension level reaches that of a typical 10-year-old child, maybe we can have this conversation again.

In hindsight, I don't think a typical 10-year-old is as intellectually dishonest as you are.
LOL hopefully you take some remedial high school classes so you don't end up like Jim Morrison and choking to death on your own vomit next time you get blackout drunk and lose control of your bodily functions in your unconscious state. But the important thing is we not embarrass you for your irresponsibility, correct?
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
You're using a lot of words to avoid simply telling someone "don't get blackout drunk."
Many, many words..

Now she gets a free pass, because she skipped lunch, or she took drugs and drank.


I only take blood pressure meds, but EVERY label says "DO NOT MIX WITH ALCOHOL.

I guess the princess needs someone to read her labels now.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
12,915
2,482
126
Many, many words..

Now she gets a free pass, because she skipped lunch, or she took drugs and drank.


I only take blood pressure meds, but EVERY label says "DO NOT MIX WITH ALCOHOL.

I guess the princess needs someone to read her labels now.
Aww, you didn't want to be left out when the prizes for the stupid awards were given out.

Ok, here's one for you: While yes, medication typically comes with notes of known substances that shouldn't be combined with it, the key word here is "known". People don't get handed out a list of food and meds that they are in some way intolerant to when they start out in life. So guess what? You could be put on some new (in every sense, or just new to you) medication, and when you drink say pineapple juice later, suddenly you're a woozy mess on the floor. You may have drunk pineapple juice all your life and not known of any trouble with it, because you hadn't combined it in that way before, or the meds exacerbated the mildest of symptoms that you hadn't really noticed before to a point where they definitely were noticeable, yet you still wouldn't necessarily suspect a drink you've drink before of having a role in the situation.

And it doesn't even need to be meds, some people simply don't agree with a particular type of alcoholic drink while having a significant tolerance for other types, or the alcohol may have had nothing to do with it. I have a friend who is intolerant to a particular food colouring substance.

The fact of the matter is in this situation with Brock Turner, you don't know what happened and whether her intoxicated state was entirely of her own doing ie. she drank excessively as part of enjoying herself. You prefer to assume and assign blame based on your assumptions. This is about you and your wilful ignorance and hard-on for preaching, not her.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,321
126
I know your crystal ball tells you Turner was going to ass rape the poor child as a pay per view event, he just didn't have enough time to get the party started. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't.. Who can say? Oh wait, YOU can say. If you're so psychic, why aren't you at the race track making millions?

I don't know what he WAS GOING TO DO, I only know what he was actually caught doing. And what he was actually caught doing doesn't rise to the level of "rape".

Maybe this summer, you should make a road trip to Pennsylvania and talk to a few victims of Catholic priests..

Maybe then , you'll get a clue.
Actually the federal definition of rape is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
You never did answer my previous question, if the judge gave him 2/3 of the time in jail that the prosecution was asking for and he didn't have to register as a sex offender, would that be fair?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aegeon

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
Actually the federal definition of rape is:
You never did answer my previous question, if the judge gave him 2/3 of the time in jail that the prosecution was asking for and he didn't have to register as a sex offender, would that be fair?
Try asking one of the Catholic priest victims which they would've preferred.

1. A little "fingering".
Or
2. The full on sexual assault they received.

Which do you think they will choose? (Hums the theme from Jeopardy.)


And in case you weren't following the case, he was tried in state court, not federal court.
 
Mar 11, 2004
19,323
1,803
126
Try asking one of the Catholic priest victims which they would've preferred.

1. A little "fingering".
Or
2. The full on sexual assault they received.

Which do you think they will choose? (Hums the theme from Jeopardy.)


And in case you weren't following the case, he was tried in state court, not federal court.
Uh, pretty sure they wouldn't be ok with either, but nice fallacious (then again, with your comprehension you probably view that as fellatious). I'll be sure to let people who get molested know that you said they should just be happy, that they're not a real victim because it wasn't full on rape by a penis. Actually I'll let you do that and then you can tell us how well that went over.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,321
126
Try asking one of the Catholic priest victims which they would've preferred.

1. A little "fingering".
Or
2. The full on sexual assault they received.

Which do you think they will choose? (Hums the theme from Jeopardy.)


And in case you weren't following the case, he was tried in state court, not federal court.
You still haven't answered the question. Granted I didn't think you'd have the integrity to ever answer it in the first place but it appears that your biggest issue has been him having to register as a sex offender because he finger banging an unconscious chick and obviously isn't a sex offender.

So I will ask again, if the judge offered him 2/3 of the jail time the prosecution asked for and he never had to register OR take what he did get, would you think that was fair?
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
You still haven't answered the question. Granted I didn't think you'd have the integrity to ever answer it in the first place but it appears that your biggest issue has been him having to register as a sex offender because he finger banging an unconscious chick and obviously isn't a sex offender.

So I will ask again, if the judge offered him 2/3 of the jail time the prosecution asked for and he never had to register OR take what he did get, would you think that was fair?
A choice between stupid and dumb is no choice. An appropriate sentence, given the actual behavior, and lack of any criminal record would have been 6 months in jail and 200 hours of community service.

Trying to place Turner in the same class as Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy is the real fallacy.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,228
975
126
So I will ask again, if the judge offered him 2/3 of the jail time the prosecution asked for and he never had to register OR take what he did get, would you think that was fair?
I'm not who you asked this question to but the premise is flawed; a sexual offender list should be re-examined periodically and if the person is judged to no longer be a threat then we should give them the opportunity to get their name removed from the list. A rough parallel would parole hearings for prison inmates. I have no insight into whether that would ever apply in the Brock Turner case (although I doubt it) but jail time at least has a recourse - the sentence could be commuted - and there's no such recourse for the sex offender list. Currently in most states if you're on the list you're there permanently, even if you were later pardoned because the person who accused you recanted and admitted they lied. Such a list should not be a permanent one-way trip and there is a public policy reason to not make it so; for example there's probably little value in having an 18 y.o. who had a 15 y.o. old sexual partner on the list as a sexual offender for the next 50 decades of their life.
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
3,595
1,015
136
I'm not who you asked this question to but the premise is flawed; a sexual offender list should be re-examined periodically and if the person is judged to no longer be a threat then we should give them the opportunity to get their name removed from the list. A rough parallel would parole hearings for prison inmates. I have no insight into whether that would ever apply in the Brock Turner case (although I doubt it) but jail time at least has a recourse - the sentence could be commuted - and there's no such recourse for the sex offender list. Currently in most states if you're on the list you're there permanently, even if you were later pardoned because the person who accused you recanted and admitted they lied. Such a list should not be a permanent one-way trip and there is a public policy reason to not make it so; for example there's probably little value in having an 18 y.o. who had a 15 y.o. old sexual partner on the list as a sexual offender for the next 50 decades of their life.
I don't really understand why we force people to register at all...
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
I don't really understand why we force people to register at all...
In order to make the only way off, is by doing a Roman Polanski. He did a REAL rape. He got a 14 year old wasted on champagne and quaaludes, and banged her at Jack Nicholson's house, knocking her higher than a kite.. While out on bail, he left his pregnant wife (Sharon Tate, the victim of Charlie Manson) and hopped a plane to France. He couldn't even come back for her funeral.

43 years later, He's living large on his own French villa, no time, no crime, no list.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,321
126
I'm not who you asked this question to but the premise is flawed; a sexual offender list should be re-examined periodically and if the person is judged to no longer be a threat then we should give them the opportunity to get their name removed from the list. A rough parallel would parole hearings for prison inmates. I have no insight into whether that would ever apply in the Brock Turner case (although I doubt it) but jail time at least has a recourse - the sentence could be commuted - and there's no such recourse for the sex offender list. Currently in most states if you're on the list you're there permanently, even if you were later pardoned because the person who accused you recanted and admitted they lied. Such a list should not be a permanent one-way trip and there is a public policy reason to not make it so; for example there's probably little value in having an 18 y.o. who had a 15 y.o. old sexual partner on the list as a sexual offender for the next 50 decades of their life.
I can agree with that, I've had other issues with the list since it started. Granted certain offenders should be on it for life but quite a few should never have to register while others, like you said, might not need to be on it forever.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,321
126
A choice between stupid and dumb is no choice. An appropriate sentence, given the actual behavior, and lack of any criminal record would have been 6 months in jail and 200 hours of community service.

Trying to place Turner in the same class as Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy is the real fallacy.
6 months for two felony counts of sexual assault on a passed out woman??? People get more than that for possession of illegal substances with no criminal record. But violating a young woman passed out, eh, no big deal right?

Do you even know what the prosecution asked for? I doubt it but I'm sure you will look it up and pretend that you knew. How does that in any way put him in the same class as Bundy or Gacy?
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
How does that in any way put him in the same class as Bundy or Gacy?
The protectionist, feminized choir here has been doing nothing but trying to paint him with the same broad brush.

In their girly men minds, they see no difference.

And, I didn't say anything about what he was convicted of (felonies), because he was overcharged from the start. Which is what California prosecutors do 90% of the time, in order to force a plea deal.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,819
193
106
The protectionist, feminized choir here has been doing nothing but trying to paint him with the same broad brush.

In their girly men minds, they see no difference.
lol

Are you going to tell us how much you can squat next? If so, you've logged in to the wrong one of your accounts.

And, I didn't say anything about what he was convicted of (felonies), because he was overcharged from the start. Which is what California prosecutors do 90% of the time, in order to force a plea deal.
He was charged appropriately, and even had rape charges dropped after the prosecutors determined that there was not enough evidence.
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
I only have one account, and I'm not the one trying to accuse him of being Jack the Ripper.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,819
193
106
I only have one account,
I was joking about the account; you just sounded eerily similar to another long-time poster.

and I'm not the one trying to accuse him of being Jack the Ripper.
Neither is anyone else. We're just accusing him of committing felony sexual assault, which he clearly did.

What you're doing is trying to minimize the seriousness of what he actually did (and it was pretty damn serious).
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,321
126
The protectionist, feminized choir here has been doing nothing but trying to paint him with the same broad brush.

In their girly men minds, they see no difference.

And, I didn't say anything about what he was convicted of (felonies), because he was overcharged from the start. Which is what California prosecutors do 90% of the time, in order to force a plea deal.
So, in your opinion, he did not commit felony sexual assault?
 
Nov 25, 2013
31,021
11,028
136
Still a creep.

The protectionist, feminized choir here has been doing nothing but trying to paint him with the same broad brush.

In their girly men minds, they see no difference.

And, I didn't say anything about what he was convicted of (felonies), because he was overcharged from the start. Which is what California prosecutors do 90% of the time, in order to force a plea deal.
 

Viper1j

Platinum Member
Jul 31, 2018
2,282
976
96
How bad have things gotten? Ever heard of "rape by fraud"?

In most states, it's called "Rape by deception".

As in "Don't worry Peggy.. Of course I'll marry you if you get pregnant.."

Most of our fathers would be doing hard time if these laws had been in effect 40 years ago.. Hell probably more than a few people here as well.

Today, it's "rape" if the check you wrote the hooker bounces.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,819
193
106
How bad have things gotten? Ever heard of "rape by fraud"?

In most states, it's called "Rape by deception".

As in "Don't worry Peggy.. Of course I'll marry you if you get pregnant.."

Most of our fathers would be doing hard time if these laws had been in effect 40 years ago.. Hell probably more than a few people here as well.

Today, it's "rape" if the check you wrote the hooker bounces.
But that's not at all what happened here, You do realize that, right?

Isn't there an incel/redpill forum you can go post this stuff on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

ASK THE COMMUNITY