Posts Made By: Darian Rachal

Originally Posted by James Lacey

"I suspect that the sex between this 10-year-old girl and the man in the US illegally was consensual. If you give the matter some thought, that seems reasonable."

No one twisted what he wrote, Rich. I'm entirely comfortable condemning the above statement in the strongest possible way. The fact that you are defending what is an obvious pro-pedophilia statement is quite frankly disgusting.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

I was not the first person to respond. I was not even the second person to answer. I would have to double-check, but I don't think I was even the third person to respond. Look, as I said, you are right. Darian doesn't have to clarify anything. But for now, his words stand and have meaning, and his lack of forthrightness in clearing up the matter is on him, not me.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Darian,

For a minor and an adult, yes never means yes.

I'm going to assume you expressed yourself poorly and move on. However, the law is quite clear on this matter. Morally and ethically, we as a society go to great lengths to protect people from sex crimes, especially when it involves minors. It is abhorrent to disagree with that pillar of our community.

Originally Posted by Jim Moscheck

Is anyone else having trouble going to pages 11, 12, 13, or 14 in this thread? They won't open for me on three different computers. I can open page 1 - 10 and page 15.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Darian: 

You mentioned in our PM that it was plausible the girl said "yes."  I agreed this was a plausible scenario.  Assuming the perpetrator was an adult, and the subject was sexual intercourse, that sort of yes never means yes in an ethical modern society.  This is reflected in our rape laws and society's general abhorrence of pedophilia as a criminal perversion worse than all others.  This is James' point, I think.

I get the feeling that you believe it is qualitatively "worse" or "more immoral" for an adult to grab a random 10 year old child and forcibly rape her than it would be for an adult to ask a 10 year old child it she wants to have sex and then to proceed with it, but only if she says yes.  I am not saying that you think it is OK for him to have sex after she says "yes."  But after reading this thread I am now thinking that you believe the context of her saying "yes" matters, not legally, but morally.   Please correct me and my apologies if I am wrong.

I've thought about it a lot.  There is, in my opinion no difference in moral deprivation, or criminality, or general scum-ness between the hypothetical guy who forcibly rapes a 10 year old and this perpetrator guy who plausibly asked first if she wants to have sex.  This is because a 10 year old can not form consent to sex.  The power imbalance is huge.  Her life experiences are entirely lacking.  She is nearly a baby! 

In my opinion, soliciting a "yes" is exactly as vile, corrupt, and violent an action as if the perpetrator had grabbed a random 10 year old kicking and screaming off the playground and raped her in the back of his car.  In the first case the violence against the girl is mental and subtle, but entirely evil and will do lasting harm.  In the second case, the violence is physical and loud, but no more entirely evil and no more likely to cause lasting harm.  

Jim

Originally Posted by James Brown

Hi Darian: 

You mentioned in our PM that it was plausible the girl said "yes."  I agreed this was a plausible scenario.  Assuming the perpetrator was an adult, and the subject was sexual intercourse, that sort of yes never means yes in an ethical modern society.  This is reflected in our rape laws and society's general abhorrence of pedophilia as a criminal perversion worse than all others.  This is James' point, I think.

I get the feeling that you believe it is qualitatively "worse" or "more immoral" for an adult to grab a random 10 year old child and forcibly rape her than it would be for an adult to ask a 10 year old child it she wants to have sex and then to proceed with it, but only if she says yes.  I am not saying that you think it is OK for him to have sex after she says "yes."  But after reading this thread I am now thinking that you believe the context of her saying "yes" matters, not legally, but morally.   Please correct me and my apologies if I am wrong.

I've thought about it a lot.  There is, in my opinion no difference in moral deprivation, or criminality, or general scum-ness between the hypothetical guy who forcibly rapes a 10 year old and this perpetrator guy who plausibly asked first if she wants to have sex.  This is because a 10 year old can not form consent to sex.  The power imbalance is huge.  Her life experiences are entirely lacking.  She is nearly a baby! 

In my opinion, soliciting a "yes" is exactly as vile, corrupt, and violent an action as if the perpetrator had grabbed a random 10 year old kicking and screaming off the playground and raped her in the back of his car.  In the first case the violence against the girl is mental and subtle, but entirely evil and will do lasting harm.  In the second case, the violence is physical and loud, but no more entirely evil and no more likely to cause lasting harm.  

Jim

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I read your response before you deleted it. I just hope you don't ever end up on jury service to hear a similar case with the possibility of doing some real damage with your suspicions and rationalizations about the victim in this case...

Originally Posted by Mel Maki

I used to think I could fall back on the saying that, "The US has a terrible system, but it still is the best one.
But more and more I hate how the two parties play us as fools. And they scratch each other's backs. It is almost like professional wrestling.The skirmishes each party gets their faithful wound up and fighting about are not geared to their smarter members. Many of these problems could legally work themselves out with no screaming and hatred from us. Looking back, how many of us are satisfied with the way those rounds were fought? Even when I was certain I was on the right side what did I accomplish?
And please, no more of the bs, but the politicians on my side are honest. Honest people could not be politicians for years, especially at the national level. They would LOSE. 
Why isn't everybody upset that 90 some percent of incumbents are re-elected? How could that be true? Year after year it is. Do not tell me it is because they are the  best choice! The only answer is the system is rigged. How can you be ok with your participation, your effort to know what these politicians are, your effort to convince others. Your efforts are for fools because the election is 90 some percent predetermined.
There should be some big holes in my previous paragraph. What are they? Beats the shit out of me.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

He has a lot of pull, now doesn't he:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-abortion-dobbs/index.html
But, as noted in the above link, when you're coming up against the likes of a handmaiden like Amy Coney Barrett, "of whom Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham declared during her confirmation hearing: "This is the first time in American history that we've nominated a woman who's unashamedly pro-life and embraces her (Roman Catholic) faith without apology", you're pretty much toast particularly when you've got Thomas activerly crusading for overturning Roe years before he ever heard the case...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

It also seems to be true that your side has caught the car by overturning Roe but is in denial about the injustice and suffering it has caused. The chaos and confusion regarding what abortion services are available because of trigger bans and state legislatures moving quickly to enact laws designed to restrict abortion access maliciously, such as limiting inter-state travel, has led to harmful outcomes. For example, women have been forced to carry a dead fetus for weeks because doctors and hospitals are afraid of carrying out what would have been a routine medical procedure before.

Another reality headed your way is the backlash against the GOP that will manifest at the polls and the federal legislation enacted by Congress to protect other rights similarly based on privacy constructs that may eventually lead to federal protection for abortion rights. Your side will lose the war if the Democrats capture Congress in the mid-terms. And there is some evidence that the Democrats will not do poorly.