Discussion in 'Community' started by Juliet316, Jun 21, 2012.
Wait, what? Are you saying what I think you're saying?
The attorney defending that rapist scumbag at Lackland Air Force Base made the same argument that the rape victims had originally said nothing untoward happened, and didn't come out against Walker until someody had made an accusation. Heck, I think Clinton's lawyers were fond of that one too.
Well at least everything that happened with Monica and Bill was consentual, even if Clinton was a lying, cheating dog in the process.
This is several orders of magnitude more stupid and outrageous than all those other examples. At least those are adults. He seems to be suggesting here that pre-pubescent children conceived of and faithfully carried out at least a decade-long plan to accuse someone of rape so that they could, when they were more than twice their age at the outset, try to cash in with a lawsuit.
Arwen, do you realize how incredibly ignorant, impossible, and conspiratorial that sounds when you put in plain terms instead of using a bunch of ominous sounding innuendo?
I meant something closer to Jones than Lewinsky
Wocky: Trying to come up with a hierarchy of awfulness when it comes to rape is a fool's proposition.
Agreed, but calling people who had been raped as kids essentially gold digging liars seems so much worse which is what Armendola and this Arawn poster seem to be implying.
Yeah, on second thought, agreed. It's pretty superfluous in any case, as my main concern was trying to consider exactly how ridiculous Arwen's proposal was. Regardless of whether it is or isn't worse than other crimes discussed, the idea that a child has the discipline, foresight, emotional subtlety to pull of deception of this complexity is just not credible.
You've been told twice to stop calling me "Arwen", and you're still doing it.
Do you realize that's blatant childish trolling?
To use one of your own favorite phrases, reading is fundamental, right?
( Furthermore, that you see an alleged conversation between two individuals as "impossible" indicates how far afield your self-serving fanaticism has led you from reality. The occurrence described is by no means "impossible" by any accepted definition of the word. )
Forget it. He gives people nicknames all the time. The more important thing to address is were you really suggesting that the man is lying about being raped?
Instead of focusing on everyone posting your name wrong (I get called 'Vivic' all the time and you don't hear me whining), how about we steer back towards the part where you say a rape didn't happen because the victim didn't come out at first. Because that's a pretty ****ty thing to say.
Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help you.
I never said anything didn't happen. I said the alleged victim denied that it happened. That's a fact.
Your problem is that unwelcome facts irritate you because they poke holes in your fantasy world.
You insisted that the victim denying it at first was suspicious. You continue to put victim in quotes. If you're not saying that he wasn't raped, then what are you saying.
What are you making of that point, though? If you think the victim was actually raped, and that senior officials did actively conspire to conceal the concerns about sexual abuse, why is this "fact" of yours significant or relevant?
Yes, in my fantasy world a man rapes dozens of children on a university campus, protected by the university leadership and a culture who care more about a game than they do about their own humanity. If only our world could be like my fantasy.
You forgot the part where nobody contacts the campus police.
Well, that post certainly assuaged everyone's concern that you've done nothing but dodge questions and cast aspersions on the victims by way of implication.
Arawn, do you know how to answer questions.
I only mentioned one person. The so-called "implication" is your own invention.
The self-appointed moral scolds are lying, as self-appointed moral scolds usually do, when they claim that nobody contacted the authorities.
Then again, this is the same group that supports punishing the innocent along with the guilty, so the implied moral superiority was a complete joke from the start.
Joe Paterno and the University President contacted law enforcement? I must have missed that news report. Can you give us a link?
Also, which "innocent" people were being punished? As I recall penalties were announced against the Penn State football program. Which is, you know, the same program where the abuse happened and was concealed. How are they "innocent" of it?