NationStates Jolt Archive

A cop who jerked off onto a female driver was found not guilty recently. His excuse was that the woman was "an overtly sexual woman" who "got what she wanted". Now we all know that there is no such thing as rape or sexual crimes because all women really want it, and they want it hard and rough. This cop's genius though was that he picked a stripper to squirt on. Nobody believes a stripper when she says she was victimized. It's good to know our police officers can go about their business safe from such reckless prosecution.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/

That cop should get a medal, and the stripper should be sent to jail for not thanking the cop afterwards.

DCD strikes again!

That cop should get a medal, and the stripper should be sent to jail for not thanking the cop afterwards.

I second that

I know the lawyer's just doing his job, but at times like this, I wouldn't mind if he got run over a bus at this point of time. Repeatedly.

And the jury too.

That's about as disgusting as the case back in the 80s where a rapist was not convicted, despite all the physical evidence showing he was without a doubt the rapist, because of the way the woman was dressed---the "she was asking for it defense." I can't even begin to say what I think ought to happen to those jurors.

A cop who jerked off onto a female driver was found not guilty recently. His excuse was that the woman was "an overtly sexual woman" who "got what she wanted". Now we all know that there is no such thing as rape or sexual crimes because all women really want it, and they want it hard and rough. This cop's genius though was that he picked a stripper to squirt on. Nobody believes a stripper when she says she was victimized. It's good to know our police officers can go about their business safe from such reckless prosecution.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/

The Serving Officers Bad Lieutenant Appreciation society should be declaring their national day of celebration soon then......Best remind the womenfolk borrowing the car that if they forget to roll up the window, they get to clean it.

The cop had obviously watched this movie one too many times:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103759/

If you're seen it, you'll know what scene I'm refering to.
If you haven't see it, you really should. Disturbing, but an awesome performance by Keitel.


edit: Damn you, Nod! beaten by mere seconds. grrr....

That's about as disgusting as the case back in the 80s where a rapist was not convicted, despite all the physical evidence showing he was without a doubt the rapist, because of the way the woman was dressed---the "she was asking for it defense." I can't even begin to say what I think ought to happen to those jurors.

QFT.

I was going to pay a prostitute when I visited Amsterdam to climb a tree and then take a picture of her. But that cop is really without any sort of decency.

...So, according to one of our esteemed, self-appointed junior hall-montor wannabes, we're all about to start flaming and trolling each other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517648) on this thread.

*sound of crickets chirping*

Uhhh, so anybody got some marshmallows?

...So, according to one of our esteemed, self-appointed junior hall-montor wannabes, we're all about to start flaming and trolling each other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517648) on this thread.

*sound of crickets chirping*

Uhhh, so anybody got some marshmallows?

Who's going to flame this thread? Which junior hall monitor thinks we're getting out of line?

Who's going to flame this thread? Which junior hall monitor thinks we're getting out of line?

Who's eating this chicken?

Well, DCD - check out the linky and the mystery will be solved.

Zoiks, Scoob!

And there was this unspoken advantage over the prosecution: longtime courthouse observers have no memory of an Orange County jury convicting a police officer of a felony.


for all the cop's extremely obvious guilt, i guess the prosecutor should have taken the community into consideration if she really wanted a conviction in this case.

for all the cop's extremely obvious guilt, i guess the prosecutor should have taken the community into consideration if she really wanted a conviction in this case.

Maybe the rest of the country ought to direct a little outrage at that community, wake their stupid asses up.

Oh, please. Learn how to read. :rolleyes: Or at least quit lying about what I said.
Learn to read? You're the one who couldn't detect obvious sarcasm.

...So, according to one of our esteemed, self-appointed junior hall-montor wannabes, we're all about to start flaming and trolling each other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517648) on this thread.

*sound of crickets chirping*

Uhhh, so anybody got some marshmallows?

Oh, please. Learn how to read. :rolleyes: Or at least quit lying about what I said.

A cop who jerked off onto a female driver was found not guilty recently. His excuse was that the woman was "an overtly sexual woman" who "got what she wanted". Now we all know that there is no such thing as rape or sexual crimes because all women really want it, and they want it hard and rough. This cop's genius though was that he picked a stripper to squirt on. Nobody believes a stripper when she says she was victimized. It's good to know our police officers can go about their business safe from such reckless prosecution.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/

Uh..what the fuck?

Maybe the rest of the country ought to direct a little outrage at that community, wake their stupid asses up.

you arent suggesting one of those national-talk-radio-host things where we flood the local newspaper or police department with angry letters/emails are you?

Which junior hall monitor thinks we're getting out of line?

Nobody. Dobbsy misrepresented my post grossly.

Learn to read? You're the one who couldn't detect obvious sarcasm.

It's always within the purvue of the chronically witless to fail to do so. And it's always within the purvue of the... shall we say, more - authoritarian of those who post here to make a habit of running off to Moderation at the drop of a hat, in this case an amusing novelty hat.

For shame, say I. There's nothing terribly noble about being a known rat, particularly one who goes out of their way to try ruining other people's fun with their rattiness.

Nobody. Dobbsy misrepresented my post grossly.

I don't have to misrepresent anything, dear. It's there in black and white for anyone to see - I even linked to it. Stop trying to be some "Pre-crime"-style NS copper, already. 'Cause nobody loves a cop.

Learn to read? You're the one who couldn't detect obvious sarcasm.
Like I said, dobbsy grossly misrepresented what I posted. Hence the "Or at least quit lying about what I said."

It's always within the purvue of the chronically witless to fail to do so. And it's always within the purvue of the... shall we say, more - authoritarian of those who post here to make a habit of running off to Moderation at the drop of a hat, in this case an amusing novelty hat.

For shame, say I. There's nothing terribly noble about being a known rat, particularly one who goes out of their way to try ruining other people's fun with their rattiness.

You, cur, are a damned liar.

You know, I am not at all a violent person, but I kind of want to hunt down the members of that jury and kick them all very hard in their genitalia. Ugh.

...So, according to one of our esteemed, self-appointed junior hall-montor wannabes, we're all about to start flaming and trolling each other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517648) on this thread.

*sound of crickets chirping*

Uhhh, so anybody got some marshmallows?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=517643

Nothing flamy yet, but someone might want to keep a fire watch eye on this one:

People are possibly suggesting a woman deserved a possible sexual assault and her possible assailant a medal. It'd be reasonable to expect some fiery replies as well....


I stand by my statement that you are a damned liar.

I don't have to misrepresent anything, dear. It's there in black and white for anyone to see - I even linked to it. Stop trying to be some "Pre-crime"-style NS copper, already. 'Cause nobody loves a cop.
Man, Fuck da police!

And I'll stick by my statement Daistallia, thanks for going so well out of your way to illustrate my point for me.

It's always within the purvue of the chronically witless to fail to do so. And it's always within the purvue of the... shall we say, more - authoritarian of those who post here to make a habit of running off to Moderation at the drop of a hat, in this case an amusing novelty hat.

For shame, say I. There's nothing terribly noble about being a known rat, particularly one who goes out of their way to try ruining other people's fun with their rattiness.



I don't have to misrepresent anything, dear. It's there in black and white for anyone to see - I even linked to it. Stop trying to be some "Pre-crime"-style NS copper, already. 'Cause nobody loves a cop.

Lunatic Goofballs loves a cop.

and here's one problem with a "Jury of one's peers." A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—
now would the verdict had been different if half of those jury members had been peers of the accuser? say 6 women who worked at a stip bar? :p


Man, Fuck da police!

the point is that she didn't. :D

Nobody. Dobbsy misrepresented my post grossly.

Dobbsy linked to your post, for fuck's sake.

And I'll stick by my statement Daistallia, thanks for going so well out of your way to illustrate my point for me.

Well,m that's either an acknowledgement that I am correct and you lied about my statement that there was nothing flamy, or a further lie. Either way, good day and good ridance you lying cur.

Well,m that's either an acknowledgement that I am correct and you lied about my statement that there was nothing flamy, or a further lie. Either way, good day and good ridance you lying cur.

I'm sure that I'm not the only one who sees irony in the fact that you were the one who suggested in Moderation that the mods keep an eye on this thread as regards flaming, and that you are the one engaging in it.

And so the prophecy came to pass, although not in the way Oedipus had hoped. He had become the problem.

*nods*

What a disgusting asshole!

and here's one problem with a "Jury of one's peers."
now would the verdict had been different if half of those jury members had been peers of the accuser? say 6 women who worked at a stip bar? :p




the point is that she didn't. :D

i dont know about strippers, they probably would have been excused from the jury. too close to the subject.

but

the thing is that no cop ever gets convicted of a felony in orange county. no one could remember it ever happening. the citizens of orange county support their police to an insane level--to the point where they can commit blatant felonies.

all the defense attorney had to do was give the jury a reason to find the cop innocent. it wasnt a good reason but it was enough for a jury automatically inclined to let him off.

if it had not been a cop who did this but rather some -- oh i dont know-- stranded motorist that she stopped to help, he mostly likely would have been convicted.

what im saying is that its not a matter of strippers not getting enough respect but of cops getting too much repsect.

It's always within the purvue of the chronically witless to fail to do so. And it's always within the purvue of the... shall we say, more - authoritarian of those who post here to make a habit of running off to Moderation at the drop of a hat, in this case an amusing novelty hat.

For shame, say I. There's nothing terribly noble about being a known rat, particularly one who goes out of their way to try ruining other people's fun with their rattiness.



I don't have to misrepresent anything, dear. It's there in black and white for anyone to see - I even linked to it. Stop trying to be some "Pre-crime"-style NS copper, already. 'Cause nobody loves a cop.
All of you are such bitches to each other.

Dobbsy linked to your post, for fuck's sake.

Yes, but he lied about what my post said.

[QUOTE=The NazzI'm sure that I'm not the only one who sees irony in the fact that you were the one who suggested in Moderation that the mods keep an eye on this thread as regards flaming, and that you are the one engaging in it.[/QUOTE]

And callinmg him out for lying about what I said is flaming how?

Anyhow, I will consider the matyter closed by putting said liar on ignore.

Anyhow, I will consider the matyter closed by putting said liar on ignore.

One down and - how many more to go?

Well, that's entertainment - !

i dont know about strippers, they probably would have been excused from the jury. too close to the subject.

but

the thing is that no cop ever gets convicted of a felony in orange county. no one could remember it ever happening. the citizens of orange county support their police to an insane level--to the point where they can commit blatant felonies.

all the defense attorney had to do was give the jury a reason to find the cop innocent. it wasnt a good reason but it was enough for a jury automatically inclined to let him off.

if it had not been a cop who did this but rather some -- oh i dont know-- stranded motorist that she stopped to help, he mostly likely would have been convicted.

what im saying is that its not a matter of strippers not getting enough respect but of cops getting too much repsect.actually, all the Defense Attorney needed to do was plant reasonable doubt. nothing more.

I do support my local police, but wrong is wrong.

somehow, I see the popularity of those dash cams and other video system (like the ones used in "Taxi Cab Confessions" ) becoming more and more popular.

actually, all the Defense Attorney needed to do was plant reasonable doubt. nothing more.

I do support my local police, but wrong is wrong.

somehow, I see the popularity of those dash cams and other video system (like the ones used in "Taxi Cab Confessions" ) becoming more and more popular.

But this isn't even reasonable doubt. This is a jury saying to a woman, because you dance for a living, a cop gets to jizz on you and there's jack fuck-all you can do about it.

for all the cop's extremely obvious guilt, i guess the prosecutor should have taken the community into consideration if she really wanted a conviction in this case.

Yeah. It's like trying to prosecute a white murderer of a black man in Mississippi. If the prosecutor really wants a conviction he should either go for littering if he didn't bury the body, or performing funerary rites without a license if he did.

This is exactly why women shouldn't be allowed to drive.

Yes, but he lied about what my post said.



And callinmg him out for lying about what I said is flaming how?

Anyhow, I will consider the matyter closed by putting said liar on ignore.

*reports for hijacking*

This is exactly why women shouldn't be allowed to drive.

And why men shouldn't be allowed to be police officers.

And why men shouldn't be allowed to be police officers.

Well.. I agree.

How about transexuals?

and here's one problem with a "Jury of one's peers."
now would the verdict had been different if half of those jury members had been peers of the accuser? say 6 women who worked at a stip bar? :p


Hey, for all you know, six of the old men do work at strip bars.

Well.. I agree.

How about transexuals?

Works for me, except insofar as I'm not a fan of police of any sort.

Works for me, except insofar as I'm not a fan of police of any sort.

:eek:

Not even the kind that.. are.. that kind?!

But this isn't even reasonable doubt. This is a jury saying to a woman, because you dance for a living, a cop gets to jizz on you and there's jack fuck-all you can do about it.read my posts again Nazz, I didn't say the Cop was innocent. :rolleyes:

Hey, for all you know, six of the old men do work at strip bars. true, or they could've been frequent customers...

And why men shouldn't be allowed to be police officers.I would rather it be that women drivers required a female officer to be present.

read my posts again Nazz, I didn't say the Cop was innocent. :rolleyes:

true, or they could've been frequent customers...

I would rather it be that women drivers required a female officer to be present.

Um...

If I'm reading that right, you're saying that for a police officer to stop a women driver, there should be a female officer present?

That doesn't seem as it would work, unless there were no male officers not accompanied by a female officer, as otherwise, what, they would be unable to act on a female driver who was, for instance, speeding?

Um...

If I'm reading that right, you're saying that for a police officer to stop a women driver, there should be a female officer present?

That doesn't seem as it would work, unless there were no male officers not accompanied by a female officer, as otherwise, what, they would be unable to act on a female driver who was, for instance, speeding?
in the case of speeding, the officer would call for a female officer after the stop was made, and the processing be done by that officer.

humbug, sure. but it would instill some trust back into the police that such things won't happen again, or at least with less frequency.

add to that the requirement of all patrol cars to have dash cams...

read my posts again Nazz, I didn't say the Cop was innocent. :rolleyes:

I didn't suggest that you did, and I'm sorry if that's the way it came off. I was trying to point out the egregious nature of the jury verdict.

Um...

If I'm reading that right, you're saying that for a police officer to stop a women driver, there should be a female officer present?

That doesn't seem as it would work, unless there were no male officers not accompanied by a female officer, as otherwise, what, they would be unable to act on a female driver who was, for instance, speeding?

Well, why not? A police cruiser has two front seats, and police forces should ideally reflect the breakdown of the population they represent - hence one car, two officers, one male and one female.

I don't see the problem, unless you want to deny women their due.

actually, all the Defense Attorney needed to do was plant reasonable doubt. nothing more.

I do support my local police, but wrong is wrong.

somehow, I see the popularity of those dash cams and other video system (like the ones used in "Taxi Cab Confessions" ) becoming more and more popular.

there was no reasonable doubt. the cop eventually admitted it, there was plenty of dna evidence.

what the defense attorney had to do was give the jury a reason to aquit an obviously guilty man. so he did the "she was a stripper she got what she deserved" defense which amounts to "as long as he's not hurting anyone important he should get off".


this attitude of needing to support the local police is not just wrong, its dangerous. everyone in a postiion of authority should be held strictly accountable for criminal behavior. what's to stop them from doing something even worse?

Well, why not? A police cruiser has two front seats, and police forces should ideally reflect the breakdown of the population they represent - hence one car, two officers, one male and one female.

I don't see the problem, unless you want to deny women their due.

Well, just out of curiousity, does anyone have the statistics of the average breakdown of genders in the police force?

Because, short of quotas, and refusing to hire/firing people based on their gender, it occurs to me that it will be difficult to have a police force exactly balanced in genders.

Well, why not? A police cruiser has two front seats, and police forces should ideally reflect the breakdown of the population they represent - hence one car, two officers, one male and one female.

I don't see the problem, unless you want to deny women their due.

It's not so much a matter of denying women their due as it is dealing with the demographics of police work. There are more male than female cops, and that's remained the case even in places where there have been recruiting drives to get more women on the force.

That said, the cop in this case violated protocol by not calling for backup when the reason he pulled her over would normally have resulted in an arrest. A second cop, male or female, might have prevented this from happening in the first place.

Well, why not? A police cruiser has two front seats, and police forces should ideally reflect the breakdown of the population they represent - hence one car, two officers, one male and one female.
That is a useful arrangement, and one that is usually carried out by police in my country. It is useful because some duties require that that garda be of the right sex (e.g. searches).

I didn't suggest that you did, and I'm sorry if that's the way it came off. I was trying to point out the egregious nature of the jury verdict.
sorry, I thought you did. Yeah, it's a shame he got off (all puns intended. :p ) but without actually being in that courtroom to hear what was said and presented and how...

there was no reasonable doubt. the cop eventually admitted it, there was plenty of dna evidence. he admitted it happened, but he didn't say that he was "stalking her" (from what I gathered from the article.) without knowing what the officer was actually charged with, it's hard to say wether or not what falls under reasonable doubt.

what the defense attorney had to do was give the jury a reason to aquit an obviously guilty man. so he did the "she was a stripper she got what she deserved" defense which amounts to "as long as he's not hurting anyone important he should get off".

this attitude of needing to support the local police is not just wrong, its dangerous. everyone in a postiion of authority should be held strictly accountable for criminal behavior. what's to stop them from doing something even worse?again, without knowing what the exact charge was, or what and how it was argued out in the courtroom, speculation is all we can do.

and Not Guilty, does not mean Innocent. take OJ Simpson. there were so many things wrong with that case that reasonable doubt was everywhere. thus the jury had to find him 'Not Guilty'.

It's not so much a matter of denying women their due as it is dealing with the demographics of police work. There are more male than female cops, and that's remained the case even in places where there have been recruiting drives to get more women on the force.

That said, the cop in this case violated protocol by not calling for backup when the reason he pulled her over would normally have resulted in an arrest. A second cop, male or female, might have prevented this from happening in the first place.which is probably why he didn't call for backup.

Well, why not? A police cruiser has two front seats, and police forces should ideally reflect the breakdown of the population they represent - hence one car, two officers, one male and one female.
Police aren't elected officials and therefore don't "represent" anybody.

Police aren't elected officials and therefore don't "represent" anybody.

But they should be "representative" of the society they serve. Last I checked, women outnumber men.

But they should be "representative" of the society they serve. Last I checked, women outnumber men.

So your solution is what? Draft women into the police force? Fire men?

But they should be "representative" of the society they serve. Last I checked, women outnumber men.

As a general rule women don't choose jobs that involve physical confrontation and violence. Can't force them to do jobs they don't want to do.

So your solution is what? Draft women into the police force? Fire men?

Other professions have seen limited hiring moratoriums in order to shift perceived imbalances. It's not unheard-of, and I don't consider police forces to be sacred cows.

As a general rule women don't choose jobs that involve physical confrontation and violence. Can't force them to do jobs they don't want to do.

Jesus Christ DCD...when was the last time you were in a public school? Or an ER? PLENTY of women there, and it involves plenty of physical confrontation and violence at times :p

Jesus Christ DCD...when was the last time you were in a public school? Or an ER? PLENTY of women there, and it involves plenty of physical confrontation and violence at times :p
Erggh! You just reminded me of a nasty nightmare I had last night. thanks bud.

*vomit*

Jesus Christ DCD...when was the last time you were in a public school? Or an ER? PLENTY of women there, and it involves plenty of physical confrontation and violence at times :p

1992. Never saw a female teacher get violent. Every fight I was in on school grounds was broken up by a male gym teacher.

Other professions have seen limited hiring moratoriums in order to shift perceived imbalances. It's not unheard-of, and I don't consider police forces to be sacred cows.

And if this should result in underpersoned police forces?

And if this should result in underpersoned police forces?

Then the world would be a better place as cops would be busy with real crimes instead of busting people's balls for a bag of weed or coke or manning speed traps.

And if this should result in underpersoned police forces?

I've never heard of an actual, under-staffed police force. I've only encountered that as a plot device in films and television. There are more than enough qualified, capable people to meet the apparent needs of police forces.

I've never heard of an actual, under-staffed police force. I've only encountered that as a plot device in films and television. There are more than enough qualified, capable people to meet the apparent needs of police forces.

considering the amount of them they have sitting around in speed traps, hassling minorities, snooping through myspace, and stalking and sexually assaulting strippers, it's probably fair to say that we could fire 80% of the cops right now

I've never heard of an actual, under-staffed police force. I've only encountered that as a plot device in films and television. There are more than enough qualified, capable people to meet the apparent needs of police forces.

How many police forces have hiring moratoriums?

Edit: Not even to bring up the ethical issues of hiring someone or not with their gender as a primary concern. Of course, there are some cases where that's reasonable, a la the entertainment industry.

How many police forces have hiring moratoriums?

Edit: Not even to bring up the ethical issues of hiring someone or not with their gender as a primary concern. Of course, there are some cases where that's reasonable, a la the entertainment industry.

What, do you think cops aren't already hired with their gender as a primary concern?

What, do you think cops aren't already hired with their gender as a primary concern?

Considering that there are women on police forces, no.

That's about as disgusting as the case back in the 80s where a rapist was not convicted, despite all the physical evidence showing he was without a doubt the rapist, because of the way the woman was dressed---the "she was asking for it defense." I can't even begin to say what I think ought to happen to those jurors.

I can, it begins with G - for "getting raped themselves".

Considering that there are women on police forces, no.

Ah, I see. Then women just make worse cops than men. All clear now.

Ah, I see. Then women just make worse cops than men. All clear now.

No, not at all. They just usually stay away from the police force. the expression that there are more men in the police field than women is true. But is this because of gender discrimination or is it just women don't want to join? I'd go with the latter, since it has been proven time and time again that there are just fewer women in fields that involve violence and/or agression.

What a pussy. He should have just asked her how much she charged by the hour and did it the right way.

No, not at all. They just usually stay away from the police force. the expression that there are more men in the police field than women is true. But is this because of gender discrimination or is it just women don't want to join? I'd go with the latter, since it has been proven time and time again that there are just fewer women in fields that involve violence and/or agression.

Ok, I see the difference now. Fewer women are involved in PAID work involving violence and/or aggression. If they want these things, they can stay home and get it for free.

Yes, I can see why seeking out more of that outside the home would be a real bummer.

I can, it begins with G - for "getting raped themselves".

Yeah, I gotta agree.

I laughed an awkward, somewhat appalled laugh.

Am I the only one who thought of the song police truck by the Dead Kennedys when I read this?

If for nothing else, you'd think this transaction would have triggered unjust enrichment. The cop got something for nothing after all.

Ok, I see the difference now. Fewer women are involved in PAID work involving violence and/or aggression. If they want these things, they can stay home and get it for free.

Yes, I can see why seeking out more of that outside the home would be a real bummer.

Nice touch, using sarcasm to try to prove a point which is completely invalid.
You really don't take the time to read my posts do you? I never once said anything about staying at home or mention anything about the 'cult of domesticity'. All I said was that many studies have found that fewer women are involved in jobs that include violence and agression. Is this the result of some kind of male conspiracy to keep women at home? No, it is women choosing not to go into these fields. If you want to continue this arguement, please stop trying to say that I am some kind of chauvinist , because in fact I'm about the complete opposite.

I laughed an awkward, somewhat appalled laugh.

Am I the only one who thought of the song police truck by the Dead Kennedys when I read this?

Yep, that and 'Fuck da police' by N.W.A.

not much detail in the article, but it looks like a classic, woman tried to seduce an officer but stepped over the line too much and paid for it

seduction is a fine art and too much force means you end up gettin hurt

as for the "she was a stripper, so he was gonna get aways with it" well yes it makes sense, i mean if you hit a housewife you should be punished, but if you hit an armywoman the punishment should probably be less because she's trained for that kinda thing so less damage done (as long as the offender knew she was in the army)

Yep, that and 'Fuck da police' by N.W.A.

But the police aren't being fucked. In this case it would be more "fuck da random woman"

:p

No, not at all. They just usually stay away from the police force. the expression that there are more men in the police field than women is true. But is this because of gender discrimination or is it just women don't want to join? I'd go with the latter, since it has been proven time and time again that there are just fewer women in fields that involve violence and/or agression.

small problem - when police forces have instituted even minor improvements in recruiting efforts, so that there is any focus at all on women in law enforcement (like even just putting up a section on the website), they have seen their female applicant pool expand ridiculously. in some cases, literally jumping from around 10% to around 50% in a single year. so it really does look like some institutional issues are what leads to the disparity. which shouldn't be surprising at all, considering that that has been the case in every single field that "women just don't want to join".

Though you really have to wonder how the woman didn't notice a cop fapping with his package pointed at her. It seems like that's about the right time to leave. Did the cop chase her or something?

Nice touch, using sarcasm to try to prove a point which is completely invalid.
You really don't take the time to read my posts do you? I never once said anything about staying at home or mention anything about the 'cult of domesticity'. All I said was that many studies have found that fewer women are involved in jobs that include violence and agression. Is this the result of some kind of male conspiracy to keep women at home? No, it is women choosing not to go into these fields. If you want to continue this arguement, please stop trying to say that I am some kind of chauvinist , because in fact I'm about the complete opposite.
Don't get your knickers in a twist dearie. I'm not calling you anything. I haven't known you long enough to form any sort of opinion about your position.

However, clearly attitudes among women have shifted. As these professions open up to include females, you have women openly wanting to be involved in 'jobs that include violence and aggression'. I have no doubt that in fifty years or so, this whole point will be moot, and representation will be more evenly split. I don't think that women actively avoid positions that involve conflict, even violence. They've been dealing with such things since the beginning of time, in one way or another. But it has only been VERY recently in the scheme of things that they've gotten any sort of chance to go into these professions. Looking at that, and the currently low numbers, and trying to draw a conclusion about inherent female preferences is silly, and I certainly hope you aren't doing that.

not much detail in the article, but it looks like a classic, woman tried to seduce an officer but stepped over the line too much and paid for it

yeah, right.
the officer had waited at least eight or nine minutes before stopping the stripper on a secluded section of a highway that was out of his jurisdiction.

“He was stalking her,” she said.

Four months earlier, Park had stopped Lucy under similar circumstances. That time, he’d ignored a plastic drug baggie he’d found in her car and her suspended license. But the stop wasn’t a waste of time. After friendly chit-chat, the officer had scored Lucy’s phone number. Telephone records show that Park called the stripper the next morning. She told him she was too busy to meet.

On the witness stand, Park explained that he’d called Lucy out of concern for a citizen’s safety. He also shrugged his shoulders when Kamiabipour slowly listed the first names of nine Captain Cream female employees—Annette, Denise, Rashele, Marlia, Brandi, Andrea, Deborah, Laura and Shannon—whose license plates he’d run through the DMV computer in the weeks prior to his sexual encounter with Lucy. (Another coincidence, according to Stokke.) Jurors also learned that Irvine Police Sgt. Michael Hallinan had previously warned Park as they left work to stay away from the strippers.

Park, who works in construction nowadays, conceded that he’d been given the warning but claimed that he had no clue it was Lucy in the vehicle or that she had an invalid driver’s license, even as he approached her car window.

Kamiabipour believed she’d caught the 6-foot-3 cop in a lie. Records show he ran the bosomy, 5-foot, 110-pound dancer’s license plate before the stop, did not call for backup despite the potential for an arrest and failed to tell his supervisor or dispatch that he was leaving Irvine.

Though you really have to wonder how the woman didn't notice a cop fapping with his package pointed at her. It seems like that's about the right time to leave. Did the cop chase her or something?

In a secretly-recorded phone call to Laguna Beach police shortly after the incident, Lucy recalled that she’d told Park she had no license. Park began “rubbing himself up against me,” she said. “Then, he said, ‘What are we going to do here, Lucy?’”

Park unzipped his pants, took his penis out and got an erection, she explained. “Basically, the officer made me give [him] a freaking hand job and he let me go. I’m so freaked out about it.”

(Lucy also told police, prosecutors and the jury that Park had also fingered her vagina and fondled her breasts before he ejaculated on her.)

?

not much detail in the article, but it looks like a classic, woman tried to seduce an officer but stepped over the line too much and paid for it

seduction is a fine art and too much force means you end up gettin hurt

as for the "she was a stripper, so he was gonna get aways with it" well yes it makes sense, i mean if you hit a housewife you should be punished, but if you hit an armywoman the punishment should probably be less because she's trained for that kinda thing so less damage done (as long as the offender knew she was in the army)

What an example of total jackassery.

If you hit anyone, period, regardless of their training or lack thereof, you should face the consequences of that unwanted application of force. No, it is not okay to hit a woman in the army, as opposed to hitting a housewife. Just like it's not okay to hit a man, regardless of their ability to do violence back to you.

And I'm not even going to address the pathetic 'classic, woman tried to seduce a police officer' line.

yeah, right.

ah okay didnt see that part

my bad, he was just a crazy pervert then:D

they should've at least got a bunch of gays to jizz all over him, that would've shown him what it's like

ah okay didnt see that part

my bad, he was just a crazy pervert then:D

they should've at least got a bunch of gays to jizz all over him, that would've shown him what it's like
So you made an incredibly derogatory assumption based on an almost complete lack of information?

Is this common for you? For future reference.

What an example of total jackassery.

If you hit anyone, period, regardless of their training or lack thereof, you should face the consequences of that unwanted application of force. No, it is not okay to hit a woman in the army, as opposed to hitting a housewife. Just like it's not okay to hit a man, regardless of their ability to do violence back to you.

And I'm not even going to address the pathetic 'classic, woman tried to seduce a police officer' line.

okay you need to calm down, you've made too many assumptions in that

i realise the first part was a mistake but i've been shown that by a "rational" person who gave evidence for it

hey i'm 6'2 and well built, i think if some1 hit me they should face a much smaller punishment than if they hit a little 5 foot bloke, because they knew they would do less harm to me

So you made an incredibly derogatory assumption based on an almost complete lack of information?

Is this common for you? For future reference.

no, but it seems common for you

and i said it SOUNDS like a classic case of...

so you made the assumption of thinkin i truely believed it

small problem - when police forces have instituted even minor improvements in recruiting efforts, so that there is any focus at all on women in law enforcement (like even just putting up a section on the website), they have seen their female applicant pool expand ridiculously. in some cases, literally jumping from around 10% to around 50% in a single year. so it really does look like some institutional issues are what leads to the disparity. which shouldn't be surprising at all, considering that that has been the case in every single field that "women just don't want to join".

I severely doubt that putting up a section on their website for women would make the figures jump up 40%.

ah okay didnt see that part

my bad, he was just a crazy pervert then:D

they should've at least got a bunch of gays to jizz all over him, that would've shown him what it's like

*sighs*

Where to start - ?

he was just a crazy pervert then

Apparently not in the eyes of the court.

they should've at least got a bunch of gays to jizz all over him, that would've shown him what it's like

Actually, I'm not gonna bother - it's not worth it. Either fine-tune your appalling sense of wit, or just grow up a bit.

okay you need to calm down, you've made too many assumptions in that That's rich coming from someone who made the statement you did. Yes, you've backed down about it applying in this case, but one must assume that is actually your general presumption.

i realise the first part was a mistake but i've been shown that by a "rational" person who gave evidence for it

hey i'm 6'2 and well built, i think if some1 hit me they should face a much smaller punishment than if they hit a little 5 foot bloke, because they knew they would do less harm to me You sure don't know much about the law then. Your attacker doesn't get into less trouble just because you happen to be bigger than the nerd he just beat up at the beach. Being big doesn't mean people should get a pass to whack you in the face on a whim.

no, but it seems common for you

and i said it SOUNDS like a classic case of...

so you made the assumption of thinkin i truely believed it
What is clear is that you believe 'woman trying to seduce police officer' is 'classic', common, and very likely the case overall. Just not this time. This is an exception, etc.

You sure don't know much about the law then. Your attacker doesn't get into less trouble just because you happen to be bigger than the nerd he just beat up at the beach. Being big doesn't mean people should get a pass to whack you in the face on a whim.

i never said it was the law, you just assumed that (u seem to do that alot)

and they would treat the person less harshly for hitting me, because i would probably have less injuries so theres less of a case (plus the whole human judgement and empathy from the judge)

What is clear is that you believe 'woman trying to seduce police officer' is 'classic', common, and very likely the case overall. Just not this time. This is an exception, etc.

nope i didn't say it was common i said it was classic, classics are normally rare that's why they're classic (another assumption)

*sighs*

Where to start - ?



Apparently not in the eyes of the court.



Actually, I'm not gonna bother - it's not worth it. Either fine-tune your appalling sense of wit, or just grow up a bit.Oh don't do that. He just said it, it doesn't mean he believes it. You can't make assumptions about him based on the stupid shit he says, that's just not fair.

i never said it was the law, you just assumed that (u seem to do that alot)

and they would treat the person less harshly for hitting me, because i would probably have less injuries so theres less of a case (plus the whole human judgement and empathy from the judge)

In a civil case, it wouldn't matter if you didn't even get a bruise. Battery doesn't require there to be harm, just unwanted physical contact. Criminally, perhaps he'd get a lighter sentence for not beating you to a pulp, but no guarantee of that.

Let's go back to the stupid thing you said earlier...about it being more okay to hit a woman with military training than a housewife. Want to make a comment on that particularly assinine statement?

Don't get your knickers in a twist dearie. I'm not calling you anything. I haven't known you long enough to form any sort of opinion about your position.

However, clearly attitudes among women have shifted. As these professions open up to include females, you have women openly wanting to be involved in 'jobs that include violence and aggression'. I have no doubt that in fifty years or so, this whole point will be moot, and representation will be more evenly split. I don't think that women actively avoid positions that involve conflict, even violence. They've been dealing with such things since the beginning of time, in one way or another. But it has only been VERY recently in the scheme of things that they've gotten any sort of chance to go into these professions. Looking at that, and the currently low numbers, and trying to draw a conclusion about inherent female preferences is silly, and I certainly hope you aren't doing that.

Whether or not they have a preference for these jobs doesn't matter. They're choosing not to get involved with them.

Oh don't do that. He just said it, it doesn't mean he believes it. You can't make assumptions about him based on the stupid shit he says, that's just not fair.

Considering that's all that we are on these fora - what we say, that is - simply talking shit won't get you very far.

nope i didn't say it was common i said it was classic, classics are normally rare that's why they're classic (another assumption)

Hahaha. Now you want to define 'classic' in the way you used it here 'as rare'?

Careful, you might trip if you backpeddle too fast.

I severely doubt that putting up a section on their website for women would make the figures jump up 40%.

not by itself, probably not. but this is an issue of outreach and institutional assumptions of outdated gender norms. if it really was the case that women just didn't want the job, then instituting reforms would not make a difference. but every time they try it, they get results.

Considering that's all that we are on these fora - what we say, that is - simply talking shit won't get you very far.

Don't know you should be saying that, considering you're saying we should cut the police force down to a bare minimum.

In a civil case, it wouldn't matter if you didn't even get a bruise. Battery doesn't require there to be harm, just unwanted physical contact. Criminally, perhaps he'd get a lighter sentence for not beating you to a pulp, but no guarantee of that.

Let's go back to the stupid thing you said earlier...about it being more okay to hit a woman with military training than a housewife. Want to make a comment on that particularly assinine statement?

okay i know what you want me to say so here it is:-

i am a wifebeating, sexist, male supremacist who is all in favour of sexual harassment

in fact i just dedicated my life to satan as few days ago, and i molested my 4 year old daughter as part of the ritual

/sarcasm

now if you want me to discuss things with you why don't you try calming down and being less insult prone

i think if you hit a fully armoured police officer it should be seen as less of a crime than hitting a small defensless child, thats the premise that i started my theory on, do you agree with it or not?

i think if you hit a fully armoured police officer it should be seen as less of a crime than hitting a small defensless child, thats the premise is started my theory on, do you agree with it or not?
Absolutely not, especially considering that assaulting a police officer warrants enough social censure that it is an added criminal offence to do so.

You are basing your theory on the idea that 'causing more harm = more bad'. I think that initiating violence against anyone, regardless of their ability to 'take it' or not is abhorent.

Absolutely not, especially considering that assaulting a police officer warrants enough social censure that it is an added criminal offence to do so.

fair enough, you won't agree with the rest of it then so i won't bother

fair enough, you won't agree with the rest of it then so i won't bother

Good. Trying to back up your 'hitting a woman is okay if she's a solider' line and the 'classic situation of a woman trying to seduce a cop' line just isn't worth it, is it.

you're saying we should cut the police force down to a bare minimum.

While my feelings regarding the police have been explored in greater depth in previous threads on NSG, I haven't actually made this statement in this thread, although I have advanced the notion of police forces having gender parity with the population they serve - which doesn't necessarily imply anything about reducing the size of police forces.

Are you confusing my posts in this thread with those of someone else?

Good. Trying to back up your 'hitting a woman is okay if she's a solider' line and the 'classic situation of a woman trying to seduce a cop' line just isn't worth it, is it.

well not to you it isn't, because you think hitting a little child is just as bad as hitting a responsible adult who can deal with it

i can back em up but you don't agree with the first premise so you won't agree with the conclusion

but it's a matter of opinion anyway

as for "classic situation", yes in my mind it's classic, the same way i think some films are classics, everyone has differing opinions on what's classic so there's not point arguin about it

While my feelings regarding the police have been explored in greater depth in previous threads on NSG, I haven't actually made this statement in this thread, although I have advanced the notion of police forces having gender parity with the population they serve - which doesn't necessarily imply anything about reducing the size of police forces.

Are you confusing my posts in this thread with those of someone else?

The police force is completely opened to women, many have chosen not to join. If we put some kind of quota in place, we would have less police officers. Therefore the police department would lose more police officers than it would gain. Perhaps 'bare minimum' is an exaggeration, but there would still be less people. Its really not that police jobs are being taken by men and that somehow women are being excluded, its most likely a result of bad recruiting. I agree that recruitment tactics should be changed so as to include women, but to put some kind of quota in place is fiscally impossible.

The thing is, I doubt the current Duke Lacrosse case is helping the credibility of strippers.

Also, I think many people hold the opinion that police officers are simply better people than strippers. A lot of people seem to think of the average police officer as a hero without fault. And the average stripper as a prostitute. I think a big part of the trial was simply getting jurors who had been helped by the police in some way. Who's gonna save your kid from drugs? The police. Who's gonna get your car back when it's stolen? The police. Or at least that's how some people think. There are plenty of bad cops.

The police force is completely opened to women, many have chosen not to join. If we put some kind of quota in place, we would have less police officers. Therefore the police department would lose more police officers than it would gain. Perhaps 'bare minimum' is an exaggeration, but there would still be less people. Its really not that police jobs are being taken by men and that somehow women are being excluded, its most likely a result of bad recruiting. I agree that recruitment tactics should be changed so as to include women, but to put some kind of quota in place is fiscally impossible.

So you've chosen to put words in my mouth, then. Very nice.

So you've chosen to put words in my mouth, then. Very nice.
Because using your exact words is somehow putting words in your mouth. Way to be ignorant of what you say...:rolleyes:
Other professions have seen limited hiring moratoriums in order to shift perceived imbalances. It's not unheard-of, and I don't consider police forces to be sacred cows.

Actually, I'm not gonna bother - it's not worth it. Either fine-tune your appalling sense of wit, or just grow up a bit.

didn't notice you'd said this

care to explain why i should change my sense of humour rather than just tellin me to do it?

didn't notice you'd said this

care to explain why i should change my sense of humour rather than just tellin me to do it?

Actually you seem to have missed the point. Either the opinions you've voiced here are (bad) jokes, or you lack the maturity to be really worth listening to.

Actually you seem to have missed the point. Either the opinions you've voiced here are (bad) jokes, or you lack the maturity to be really worth listening to.

no, i made a joke and she responded by tellin me to change my sense of humour (another assumption, i've lost count of the amount you've made)

Because using your exact words is somehow putting words in your mouth. Way to be ignorant of what you say...:rolleyes:

So show me how that quotation equates to my being in favour of reducing the size of police forces, or stating as much in this thread. I'll wait...

no, i made a joke and she responded by tellin me to change my sense of humour (another assumption, i've lost count of the amount you've made)

Oh! So now you were JOKING? Oh sheesh! Instead of trying to (lamely) back up your statements all this time, why didn't you just state that from the beginning, instead of pulling it out now? Because now, you see, I just don't believe you.

Oh! So now you were JOKING? Oh sheesh! Instead of trying to (lamely) back up your statements all this time, why didn't you just state that from the beginning, instead of pulling it out now? Because now, you see, I just don't believe you.

haha this may count as another assumption on your part i think

i made a joke about gay men jizzing over the police officer and she quoted it and told me to change my sense of humour, thats the only time i was joking

please think before you type, it's obvious what's going on if you just read it

haha this may count as another assumption on your part i think

i made a joke about gay men jizzing over the police officer and she quoted it and told me to change my sense of humour, thats the only time i was joking

please think before you type, it's obvious what's going on if you just read it

Ok, so we can now establish the only time you were joking was when you were talking about gay men jizzing on the cop. The rest of the time you were serious. True, or false assumption?

Ok, so we can now establish the only time you were joking was when you were talking about gay men jizzing on the cop. The rest of the time you were serious. True, or false assumption?

true, and not so much an assumption because you looked into what i said:)

true, and not so much an assumption because you looked into what i said:)

No rereading necessary, it was all there from the beginning.

1) non-consensual force applied against someone with defensive training is less bad than non-consensual force applied against someone with no such training.

2) Like a 'classic tale', a woman attempting to seduce a policeman is a story as old as time.

3) You made the assumption, without reading the article first, that this woman tried to seduce the officer in a 'classic move' that failed to work, and the idea was amusing to you because it she became the one taken advantage of rather than the usual ending of this 'classic tale' where the male is the victim.

All of these statements are backed up by your own posts. And they are still demonstrations of jackassery.

No rereading necessary, it was all there from the beginning.

1) non-consensual force applied against someone with defensive training is less bad than non-consensual force applied against someone with no such training.

2) Like a 'classic tale', a woman attempting to seduce a policeman is a story as old as time.

3) You made the assumption, without reading the article first, that this woman tried to seduce the officer in a 'classic move' that failed to work, and the idea was amusing to you because it she became the one taken advantage of rather than the usual ending of this 'classic tale' where the male is the victim.

All of these statements are backed up by your own posts. And they are still demonstrations of jackassery.

1) as long as the offender is aware of the training (i said that previously somewhere)

2) it sure is, it's been going on since law enforcers exist (an assumption yes, but i'm sure it has been, if not i'm shocked)

3) i read the first part of the article, and thought the second part was another article, a mistake on my part but i in no way assumed i knew the whole story ( i said it sounds like, meaning it "comes off the tongue in a similiar way to...")

care to explain why it's jackassery rather than you insulting me because i don't share you're views?

oh and another assumption there, or a total slip up, you seemed to think i said you need to reread something by your first statement?

Because using your exact words is somehow putting words in your mouth. Way to be ignorant of what you say...:rolleyes:

So show me how that quotation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12314317&postcount=117) equates to my being in favour of reducing the size of police forces, or stating as much in this thread. I'll wait...

...And I'm still waiting, Herc. Gee, guess I'm not so 'ignorant' of what I've said after all, eh Mister Clever-trous?

Eh?

Epic, if you impy something, it's not wrong for another person to base their judgements on what your are implying. You don't have to explicitly state it.

"please think before you type, it's obvious what's going on if you just read it"

"oh and another assumption there, or a total slip up, you seemed to think i said you need to reread something by your first statement?"

Just saying.

Edit: Also, Mabolamabela, are you a reincarnation of another poster? You seem somewhat.... unnoobish.

...And I'm still waiting, Herc. Gee, guess I'm not so 'ignorant' of what I've said after all, eh Mister Clever-trous?

Eh?

before you go sayin that maybe you should answer my previous question as to why i should "fine tune" my sense of humour or just "grow up" first?

A cop who jerked off onto a female driver was found not guilty recently. His excuse was that the woman was "an overtly sexual woman" who "got what she wanted". Now we all know that there is no such thing as rape or sexual crimes because all women really want it, and they want it hard and rough. This cop's genius though was that he picked a stripper to squirt on. Nobody believes a stripper when she says she was victimized. It's good to know our police officers can go about their business safe from such reckless prosecution.

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/
Brilliance sheer and utter brilliance.
It's why i aspire to join the Police force one day...

Reportedly the jury had to go "cool down" after seeing "Exhibit A"

:p

Epic, if you impy something, it's not wrong for another person to base their judgements on what your are implying. You don't have to explicitly state it.

"please think before you type, it's obvious what's going on if you just read it"

"oh and another assumption there, or a total slip up, you seemed to think i said you need to reread something by your first statement?"

Just saying.

true but that person before crosses the line, like when i asked why i should change my sense of humour? so that person (name to long) thought i meant everything i posted was a joke, surely that's not what i seem to be implying?


Edit: Also, Mabolamabela, are you a reincarnation of another poster? You seem somewhat.... unnoobish.

i smell new nalitr person (just a guess though) because of the how easily winded up this person gets (b4 you get wound up by that i'm not sayin it's bad, it's just a trait some people have)

That cop should get a medal, and the stripper should be sent to jail for not thanking the cop afterwards.
I agree with this.

before you go sayin that maybe you should answer my previous question as to why i should "fine tune" my sense of humour or just "grow up" first?
I would guess that he meant that what you said seems intolerant, slightly homophobic, and crude.
true but that person before crosses the line, like when i asked why i should change my sense of humour? so that person (name to long) thought i meant everything i posted was a joke, surely that's not what i seem to be implying?

I have to say, when I read the last few posts, my sympathies lie on Mabolamabela's side of the arguement/debate. From what I understood, you seem to be implying/saying pretty much this:
"1) non-consensual force applied against someone with defensive training is less bad than non-consensual force applied against someone with no such training.

2) Like a 'classic tale', a woman attempting to seduce a policeman is a story as old as time.

3) You made the assumption, without reading the article first, that this woman tried to seduce the officer in a 'classic move' that failed to work, and the idea was amusing to you because it she became the one taken advantage of rather than the usual ending of this 'classic tale' where the male is the victim."

I would guess that he meant that what you said seems intolerant, slightly homophobic, and crude.


and why is that bad? it's my sense of humour not my serious opinion

I have to say, when I read the last few posts, my sympathies lie on Mabolamabela's side of the arguement/debate. From what I understood, you seem to be implying/saying pretty much this:
"1) non-consensual force applied against someone with defensive training is less bad than non-consensual force applied against someone with no such training.

2) Like a 'classic tale', a woman attempting to seduce a policeman is a story as old as time.

3) You made the assumption, without reading the article first, that this woman tried to seduce the officer in a 'classic move' that failed to work, and the idea was amusing to you because it she became the one taken advantage of rather than the usual ending of this 'classic tale' where the male is the victim."

okay you just reposted what that guy said?! i already responded to that earlier, read that response

side with him/her if you want, i don't think i'm being sexist, i merely thought when the officer decided to masterbate (or watever he did) it was because she was seducing him (thats normally when that scenario arises) but it turns i got that bit wrong becuz of blindness on my part

but it is sometimes the male who is the victim, it's hard to determine whether it's seduction on the woman's part which i see as her fault for mild reprecussions (more serious consequences obviously guys fault), or the man just being sex crazy or have a superiority complex or summin

i think there is some small sexism towards men because they have been given the responsibility to always control their urges, i think women should have at least a small responsibility to make sure the "urges" don't reach stupidly high levels where the man loses control

Aren't police officers supposed to have their weapon confiscated after they discharge a load in the line of duty? ;)

Reportedly the jury had to go "cool down" after seeing "Exhibit A"

:pperhaps they were doing a reinactment of the crime... :D

Aren't police officers supposed to have their weapon confiscated after they discharge a load in the line of duty? ;)

nah, they only have to make sure that they had adeqate reason and that they account for every shot. :D

and why is that bad? it's my sense of humour not my serious opinion
Iono, but I doubt you'll be popular here if you retain that sense of humor.
i think there is some small sexism towards men because they have been given the responsibility to always control their urges, i think women should have at least a small responsibility to make sure the "urges" don't reach stupidly high levels where the man loses control

I think it's this attitude in your posts that makes me side against you the most. I think that men should be able to control themselves, no matter what another person might be doing. Individual responsibility and all that.

okay you just reposted what that guy said?! i already responded to that earlier, read that response

side with him/her if you want, i don't think i'm being sexist, i merely thought when the officer decided to masterbate (or watever he did) it was because she was seducing him(thats normally when that scenario arises) but it turns i got that bit wrong becuz of blindness on my part

but it is sometimes the male who is the victim, it's hard to determine whether it's seduction on the woman's part which i see as her fault for mild reprecussions (more serious consequences obviously guys fault), or the man just being sex crazy or have a superiority complex or summin

i think there is some small sexism towards men because they have been given the responsibility to always control their urges, i think women should have at least a small responsibility to make sure the "urges" don't reach stupidly high levels where the man loses control

Is that based on anything other than farticles posing as facts?

I think it's this attitude in your posts that makes me side against you the most. I think that men should be able to control themselves, no matter what another person might be doing. Individual responsibility and all that.

okay, but would you agree that in some scenario it becomes a less serious crime?

an extreme example would be, if a woman stripped down in front of you and opened her legs, still a crime since she didnt give consent but is it as bad as a man just taking advantage of an attractive drunk woman?

that's sort of what i mean anyway

Iono, but I doubt you'll be popular here if you retain that sense of humor.


well alot of other posters seem to have the same sense of humour, and it's worked in the past

i'm sure lots of people won't appreciate it but i'm being serious when i say they're being immature as well as me

nah, they only have to make sure that they had adeqate reason and that they account for every shot. :D

:eek: Well, I'm fucked. :p

:eek: Well, I'm fucked. :p

:eek: LG, have you been shooting your load at random things without accounting for them?!?

SAFETY man, you gotta always thing about the SAFETY Factors! :p

Is that based on anything other than farticles posing as facts?

meh no facts there (never said there was tho), except that i would've of thought from all those stories i've heard and seen on t.v about this kinda stuff happenin that the woman at least did something, but in this case she didn't

I agree with this.

It's only funny when one is joking. When you're serious about that, it's simply abhorrent.

It's only funny when one is joking. When you're serious about that, it's simply abhorrent.

Umm...I think he IS joking. I thought about warning him most people would take him seriously. Can we stop ALWAYS assuming soviestan is serious?

"skeet"?

You got modded down, didn't ya?

Well, i may not have always had adequate reason...

...and it's hard to keep track of that many shots. :(

*sighs*

well, hopefully, no one A: notices and B: complains... any complaints yet?

:eek: LG, have you been shooting your load at random things without accounting for them?!?

SAFETY man, you gotta always thing about the SAFETY Factors! :p

Well, i may not have always had adequate reason...

...and it's hard to keep track of that many shots. :(

A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. This is speculation. We don't know why the jury found him innocent.
On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.
And that might be why he walked - reasonable doubt as to if he had "used his badge" to win the sexual favours?

I don't really know... If that's not the case, the jury was wrong.
and why is that bad? it's my sense of humour not my serious opinion

http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1162365292-1162259616246.b.jpg

"skeet"?

You got modded down, didn't ya?

... you know... that puts the soundtrack of "Top Secret" in a whole new light...

"Skeet Surfing"
"Skeeting U.S.A"
"My Skeeting Heart"...

So show me how that quotation equates to my being in favour of reducing the size of police forces, or stating as much in this thread. I'll wait...

Quite easily actually, You support quotas correct? Quotas reduce the number of men that are able to come into the field. Quotas attempt to bring women into the workforce, (even though its not if there aren't plenty of police jobs already for women) just so we can make our police force look politically correct. At this current time many women are less inclined to take part in the police force and thus we reduce the police squadron size. Anything else?

...And I'm still waiting, Herc. Gee, guess I'm not so 'ignorant' of what I've said after all, eh Mister Clever-trous?

Eh?

Actually, I had some studying to do and I was at that time off the computer. By the way, get my name right its Hec not herc. And clever-trous isn't a word.

meh no facts there (never said there was tho), except that i would've of thought from all those stories i've heard and seen on t.v about this kinda stuff happenin that the woman at least did something, but in this case she didn't

Are you sure those stories didn't come from Penthouse Letters?

...And I'm still waiting, Herc. Gee, guess I'm not so 'ignorant' of what I've said after all, eh Mister Clever-trous?

Eh?

Looks like I'm the one waiting now...:rolleyes:

Actually, I had some studying to do and I was at that time off the computer. By the way, get my name right its Hec not herc. And clever-trous isn't a word.

Even so, you still haven't backed up your assertion.

And no, 'clever-trous' isn't a word - it's an expression, a pop-cultural reference that you've apparently yet to encounter - not unlike my supposed position on the reduction of police forces.

I can keep waiting, you know. That, or you can finally come clean about trying to put words in my mouth.

Looks like I'm the one waiting now...:rolleyes:

And just what are you waiting for, precisely?

Quite easily actually, You support quotas correct? Quotas reduce the number of men that are able to come into the field. Quotas attempt to bring women into the workforce, (even though its not if there aren't plenty of police jobs already for women) just so we can make our police force look politically correct. At this current time many women are less inclined to take part in the police force and thus we reduce the police squadron size. Anything else?

Even so, you still haven't backed up your assertion.

And no, 'clever-trous' isn't a word - it's an expression, a pop-cultural reference that you've apparently yet to encounter - not unlike my supposed position on the reduction of police forces.

I can keep waiting, you know. That, or you can finally come clean about trying to put words in my mouth.

I guess reading really isn't your thing, so heres the post again.

And just what are you waiting for, precisely?

For hell to freeze over apparently.

I guess reading really isn't your thing, so heres the post again.

No, that's your post. Show me my post - the one you've supposedly been alluding to, the one wherein I state that I am in favour of a reduction in the numbers of police officers on police forces. The one I never made.

Or admit that all you've got are the words I won't let you insert into my oral cavity. Plain and simple, Herc.

policeman jizz: Just in time for valentine's day!

[I]I am in favour of a reduction in the numbers of police officers on police forces.

....*shakes head* That was too easy.

:p

....*shakes head* That was too easy.

:p

*clucks tongue deprecatingly*

Really...

No, that's your post. Show me my post - the one you've supposedly been alluding to, the one wherein I state that I am in favour of a reduction in the numbers of police officers on police forces. The one I never made.

Or admit that all you've got are the words I won't let you insert into my oral cavity. Plain and simple, Herc.

Perhaps you misunderstand me, by supporting quotas in the police force you are supporting the reduction of the police force and unless you can some how refute my logic you, sir, are in the wrong. And, once again, your spelling is incorrect. For the final time: its Hec not Herc. If it was Herc, it would somehow imply that I have an affialiation with the greek god Zeus which, unfortunately, I do not.

*clucks tongue deprecatingly*

Really...

:p

Perhaps you misunderstand me, by supporting quotas in the police force you are supporting the reduction of the police force and unless you can some how refute my logic you, sir, are in the wrong. And, once again, your spelling is incorrect. For the final time: its Hec not Herc. If it was Herc, it would somehow imply that I have an affialiation with the greek god Zeus which, unfortunately, I do not.

That's how you choose to see it--one can also support quotas by hiring additional women to supplement the numbers on the force and enlarging the overall force. You seem to suffer from a lack of imagination.

Perhaps you miss understand me, by supporting quotas in the police force you are supporting the reduction of the police force and unless you can some how refute my logic you, sir, are in the wrong. And, once again, your spelling is incorrect. For the final time: its Hec not Herc. If it was Herc, it would somehow imply that I have an affialiation to the greek god Zeus which, unfortunately, I do not.

And perhaps you're misunderstanding me when I demand satisfaction - as I never once made the statement you refuse to admit that I did not make; your obstinate refusal and your continued referencing of your own analysis of my actual statement don't amount to anything, "sir". Your supposed logic is circular, and I will not back down; you are neither honest or above-board by attempting to misrepresent my stated opinions.

And I was not referring to the son of Zeus, either - I was referring to "Hercule". As in "Poirot", Sherlock.

That's how you choose to see it--one can also support quotas by hiring additional women to supplement the numbers on the force and enlarging the overall force. You seem to suffer from a lack of imagination.

Not exactly, since there are many police positions out there that can be filled by women. Why exactly haven't they been filled? Women haven't gotten those jobs because they chose to, not because of some kind of male conspiracy against them.

This whole thing is utterly disgusing. What the hell is wrong with the world?

okay, but would you agree that in some scenario it becomes a less serious crime?
No, your thinking is backwards. Some particular criminal acts are more serious, mugging someone is serious, mugging them and subjecting them to unnecesary threats, humilation and terror just for additional kicks is worse, but it doesnt make mugging someone without any additional saddism less serious.
In any case the faulty reasoning was applied to a faulty premise. To believe that stripping trains one to be less injured by violation or assault is quite frankly dellusional.


meh no facts there (never said there was tho), except that i would've of thought from all those stories i've heard and seen on t.v about this kinda stuff happenin that the woman at least did something, but in this case she didn't
Yeah, we knew there were no facts to back up your biggoted prejudices. I dont know how you've failed to realise it for yourself, but it's in your interests to acquaint yourself with the fact that neither the wonderful wacky world of tv nor female-villification folk tales are actually representitive of reality. You probably should also know that the sexist attitude toward this issue that you were accused is confirmed by, not excused by your explaination of how you arrived at it.

This whole thing is utterly disgusing. What the hell is wrong with the world?

A lot. A whole hell of a lot.

Enough to make me lose faith in people...

I agree with this.

I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm, Einstein.

Not exactly, since there are many police positions out there that can be filled by women. Why exactly haven't they been filled? Women haven't gotten those jobs because they chose to, not because of some kind of male conspiracy against them.

Hold on. You've just jumped from the world of "can" to the world of "is," when all along the discussion has been about "can." Dobbsworld's assertion was always about what was possible, not what existed. You're changing requirements midstream and acting as though the new discussion was what you were talking about all along.

No, your thinking is backwards. Some particular criminal acts are more serious, mugging someone is serious, mugging them and subjecting them to unnecesary threats, humilation and terror just for additional kicks is worse, but it doesnt make mugging someone without any additional saddism less serious.
In any case the faulty reasoning was applied to a faulty premise. To believe that stripping trains one to be less injured by violation or assault is quite frankly dellusional.

you just contradicted yourself, you just said sadistical mugging is worse than regular, yet regular isn't better than sadistical? and faulty reasoning? you didn't even see my reasoning since i never got past the premise!

and as for strippers, do you actually know if it does or does not train them more for violation? sounds like a "biggoted prejudice" to me. makes sense that it would the same way having sex prepares you for some of the more disturbing fetishes (tried and tested) as for assualt, when did i say it stripping would prepare her for assualt?!? damn right it wouldn't


Yeah, we knew there were no facts to back up your biggoted prejudices. I dont know how you've failed to realise it for yourself, but it's in your interests to acquaint yourself with the fact that neither the wonderful wacky world of tv nor female-villification folk tales are actually representitive of reality. You probably should also know that the sexist attitude toward this issue that you were accused is confirmed by, not excused by your explaination of how you arrived at it.

okay so no media or stories from people themselves (direct i might add), how am i supposed to know what's goin on in the world then? where and how would i make my judgements

as far as i can tell you just radically disagree with my opinion, in your mind that makes me a bigot even though i don't pre-judge much especially out of hatred, and of course that would make you a bigot as well
guess based on not many facts, not prejudice

theres nothing unreasonable about my opinion, and nor was there about the people i debated with's opinions, so stop throwing insults already they don't work and make you look more and more "biggoted"

you just contradicted yourself,
No, I didnt.
you just said sadistical mugging is worse than regular, yet regular isn't better than sadistical?
We assume the seriousness of a kind of crime in the absence of aggravating factors, however, if such factors exist this then we view the particular instance of the crime as being more serious, the word 'more' being directed at the degree of seriousness the crime is assumed to have in the absence of aggravating factors. So an assault is always no less serious than the assumed seriousness of assaults, but some assaults may be even more serious and we recognise this, not by judging some assaults as not as serious as assaults, but rather by judging some assaults more serious than we usually assume assaults to be.
None of this involves considering a particular instance of crime to be 'less serious' than instances of that crime are, because, quite frankly that would just be stupid - we'd have no base-line other than the worst aggravating factors we can imagine might have applied. Instead of imaging what could have happened and deciding if this particular instance of a crime is more or less serious than the imagined one, we assume the seriousness of each kind of crime and deal with variance between instances by recognising aggravating factors that increase the seriousness.

and faulty reasoning? you didn't even see my reasoning since i never got past the premise!
You are not making any sense.

and as for strippers, do you actually know if it does or does not train them more for violation?
The onus of proof is on you. You made a positive assertion that being a stripper would train one to be less harmed by violation and assault. If you cannot prove it then no one is obliged to see it as anything other than the absurd BS it so obviously is. You are welcome to front up with some evidence to the contrary, but frankly I know you cannot prove this claim anymore than you could back up any of the other BS claims you've been called on in this thread.

sounds like a "biggoted prejudice" to me.
This is hardly surprising considering you dont appear able to recognise biggoted prejudice when you are engaging in it; it only makes sense you wouldnt be any better at distinguishing it in the case of other people.

makes sense that it would the same way having sex prepares you for some of the more disturbing fetishes
Mmm, yes those two ridiculous claims do indeed make about as much sense as each other...

(tried and tested) as for assualt, when did i say it stripping would prepare her for assualt?!? damn right it wouldn't
What do you think we are talking about? The stripper was assaulted and you claimed her being a stripper somehow lessoned the harm this caused her.

okay so no media or stories from people themselves (direct i might add), how am i supposed to know what's goin on in the world then? where and how would i make my judgements
Most other people manage, it's not my job to teach you how to determine reality from fantasy, however, one tip is that if you have no way of backing up a claim whatsoever, you have no reason for believing it whatsoever. The same is true if you think you have 'back up' for the claim but it consists of nothing more than the general impression you gained from wives' tales and B-grade entertainment.

as far as i can tell you just radically disagree with my opinion, in your mind that makes me a bigot even though i don't pre-judge much especially out of hatred, and of course that would make you a bigot as well
guess based on not many facts, not prejudice
Your inability to comprehend what is going on does not make someone else a bigot. Assuming that because someone is 'X' gender and does 'X' for a job, they must be sexually aggressive and are less harmed if someone commits a crime against them is biggoted prejudice.

theres nothing unreasonable about my opinion, and nor was there about the people i debated with's opinions, so stop throwing insults already they don't work and make you look more and more "biggoted"
Your opinion consists of deciding that the victim of a crime was in fact the criminal because of their gender and their completely legal employment, and that even if the crime they are alledging, was commited against them, that their employment makes them less harmed by the crime, all because this is apparently the general impression you've gotten as result of old wives' tales and tv... unreasonable seems an overly generous assesment.

For a DCD Crazy News thread people are taking this awfully seriously.

<snip>

oh boy, i'm not even gonna bother retaliating against that, some of the first stuff you say is fine and acceptable, but as you get further and further down your post you seem to let the hatred in alot

i'm gonna leave at this, when you think someone is prejudiced please don't treat them the way your treating me, because all your doing is making it worse to be honest and it seems to me like you haven't read all the posts, i mean you dismissed all forms of media as bad places to get info from, so like i asked where am i actually supposed to get my info from? go out and see for myself? i don't have that kinda money, i think i'll stick to the news like most people do.

just please rethink your anti-prejudice style, you just started dismissing each of my points in turn with just a sentence, you misunderstood almost all of my points too, but worst of all you started throwin insults, do you honestly think this will in anyway make some who is actually sexist, or some other negative prejudice, rethink their ways? i just dismissed you as a meta-prejudice
type myself so it certainly didn't work on me

ever heard the term "fight fire with fire"? well it doesn't work, you just end up with more fire, you should use water instead

For a DCD Crazy News thread people are taking this awfully seriously.

yea, whats with that?

i didn't expect anyone to respond to my first post on this thread, but i got like 3 people all hurling insults, well not hurling but certainly sniffing in my direction, only one person corrected me in a calm way

For a DCD Crazy News thread people are taking this awfully seriously.

It's pretty serious. It pretty much riled up my wife and co-worker for the rest of the day.

before you go sayin that maybe you should answer my previous question as to why i should "fine tune" my sense of humour or just "grow up" first?

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.

On second thought, this one's on me:

Considering that's all that we are on these fora - what we say, that is - simply talking shit won't get you very far.

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.

On second thought, this one's on me:

i see you used an "avoiding the question" technique there, i'm just gonna assume you can't answer it

i'm not sayin it's anything bad though, i mean the most snobbish "that's so immature" person i know tried to answer it and just ended up seeing why maturity is so immature, but then said some argument about why we should be mature even if it is really immature to be mature, which was quite ig ood one if i recall
please, no autistic "that's contradictory" reponses, you should know what it means! just think about it!

i see you used an "avoiding the question" technique there, i'm just gonna assume you can't answer it

i'm not sayin it's anything bad though, i mean the most snobbish "that's so immature" person i know tried to answer it and just ended up seeing why maturity is so immature, but then said some argument about why we should be mature even if it is really immature to be mature, which was quite ig ood one if i recall

please, no autistic "that's contradictory" reponses, you should know what it means! just think about it!

What twaddle.

Assume whatever you like - I'd just as soon not bother communicating with you any further, as frankly there would seem to be little if any point (see my self-referencing quote for further detail).

What twaddle.

Assume whatever you like - I'd just as soon not bother communicating with you any further, as frankly there would seem to be little if any point (see my self-referencing quote for further detail).

oh, so that was actually meant to be your answer?!?

the thing you posted basically said

your clueless

you talk shit

how is that an answer to my question eh:p

just admit you can't answer it

i see you used an "avoiding the question" technique there, i'm just gonna assume you can't answer it

i'm not sayin it's anything bad though, i mean the most snobbish "that's so immature" person i know tried to answer it and just ended up seeing why maturity is so immature, but then said some argument about why we should be mature even if it is really immature to be mature, which was quite ig ood one if i recall
COLOR="White"please, no autistic "that's contradictory" reponses, you should know what it means! just think about it!/COLOR

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

meh i delibaratly let me own grammar mistakes go just to annoy teh d4m Gr4M4 N4Z15!!!

meh i delibaratly let me own grammar mistakes go just to annoy teh d4m Gr4M4 N4Z15!!!

How childish.

How childish.

How adultish

oh boy, i'm not even gonna bother retaliating against that, some of the first stuff you say is fine and acceptable, but as you get further and further down your post you seem to let the hatred in alot
I'm not responsible for your unsubstantiated inferences, if you choose to see hatred somewhere it isnt, that's more your concern than mine.

i'm gonna leave at this, when you think someone is prejudiced please don't treat them the way your treating me, because all your doing is making it worse to be honest
Telling things the way the are doesnt necessarily make things worse. If, however, someone telling you things how they are has this effect on you, again this is more your concern than mine.

and it seems to me like you haven't read all the posts,
And yet I have.

i mean you dismissed all forms of media as bad places to get info from,
No I havent.

so like i asked where am i actually supposed to get my info from?
I'm neither your research methodology nor your media studies tutor.

go out and see for myself? i don't have that kinda money, i think i'll stick to the news like most people do.
I think you'll find that the balance of people who get information from the news dont automatically assume that if an on-duty policeman ejaculates on a driver he pulled over, that the women instigated the situation and even if she didnt and in fact was sexually violated, her employment made the incident less damaging to her. Plenty of people who utilise news media do not ever arrive at these kinds of views, I suspect the large majority in fact. As it happens I'm one of them.

just please rethink your anti-prejudice style,
I do not have any particular or special style that I utilise for anti-prejudice purposes.

you just started dismissing each of my points in turn with just a sentence,
I dismissed your 'points', reasoning and assertions based on their merit (or more to the point, lack thereof).

you misunderstood almost all of my points too,
I dont believe so, but if you do you are welcome to raise any specific point you think I've misunderstood, doing so might alleviate the appearance that your accusation stems more from your own realisation that you cant back up or substantiate any of these alledged points.

but worst of all you started throwin insults,
Really? I dont see that as being the case and in the absence of anything other than a vague accusation that fails to specify just what it is you are taking issue with, it seems like yet one more thing that is more your concern than mine.

do you honestly think this will in anyway make some who is actually sexist, or some other negative prejudice, rethink their ways?
Do you honestly think that I am here for the purposes of making you a better a person, rather than for my own benefit?

i just dismissed you as a meta-prejudice
type myself so it certainly didn't work on me
Which is again more your concern than mine.

ever heard the term "fight fire with fire"? well it doesn't work, you just end up with more fire, you should use water instead
I'm not a member of the fire-fighters' union, I have no intention of throwing water at my computer, and I'm not obligated to focus my efforts on improving you (surely that is more your responsiblity than mine) or anyone else for that matter.



yea, whats with that?

i didn't expect anyone to respond to my first post on this thread, but i got like 3 people all hurling insults, well not hurling but certainly sniffing in my direction, only one person corrected me in a calm way
Whether you expect it or not, if you are not prepared or able to cope with people responding, then it's not a good idea to post because funnily enough, responding to things that have been posted is a really common thing on a discussion forum. As for hurling insults, you appear to be as keen on unsubstantiated, vague and unspecific accusations as you are on unsubstantiated claims in general.

How adultish

Are you really 12, or are you just acting? Because if it's an act, then you're pretty good.

I'm not responsible for your unsubstantiated inferences, if you choose to see hatred somewhere it isnt, that's more your concern than mine.

i'm gonna leave at this, when you think someone is prejudiced please don't treat them the way your treating me, because all your doing is making it worse to be honest and it seems to me like you haven't read all the posts, i mean you dismissed all forms of media as bad places to get info from, so like i asked where am i actually supposed to get my info from? go out and see for myself? i don't have that kinda money, i think i'll stick to the news like most people do.

just please rethink your anti-prejudice style, you just started dismissing each of my points in turn with just a sentence, you misunderstood almost all of my points too, but worst of all you started throwin insults, do you honestly think this will in anyway make some who is actually sexist, or some other negative prejudice, rethink their ways? i just dismissed you as a meta-prejudice
type myself so it certainly didn't work on me

ever heard the term "fight fire with fire"? well it doesn't work, you just end up with more fire, you should use water instead



yea, whats with that?

i didn't expect anyone to respond to my first post on this thread, but i got like 3 people all hurling insults, well not hurling but certainly sniffing in my direction, only one person corrected me in a calm way[/QUOTE]

2nd paragraph doesn't make sense, nice try though. Maybe one day you'll be able to have a nice reasonable debate with someone rather than try and shove your opinion down their throat because you think their stupid/sexist or whatever

Are you really 12, or are you just acting? Because if it's an act, then you're pretty good.

now why did that wind you up so much? and what's with the insult?

i personally just find it childish:), elitist and very annoying when people start to use the word childish or immature against people

i'm not gonna explain why it'll take too long, and i'm fed up of this thread and all the anger on it

i personally just find it childish:), elitist and very annoying when people start to use the word childish or immature against people


You must get that a lot.

Considering that's all that we are on these fora - what we say, that is - simply talking shit won't get you very far.

The statement stands, even though EF would appear to be unable to deduce the (only very slightly) more subtle implication.

You must get that a lot.

nah, on this thread i'm probably the only one not throwing insults or getting wound up

sure i threw a few semi-insults but only in retaliation to other insults, plus mine had at least *some* subtlety

The statement stands, even though EF would appear to be unable to deduce the (only very slightly) more subtle implication.

nah it was obvious, and pathetic too

plus i could just say the same to you, you still refuse to explain anything you've said, so as far as i'm concerned you haven't thought about what you've said at all

now why did that wind you up so much? and what's with the insult?

i personally just find it childish:), elitist and very annoying when people start to use the word childish or immature against people

i'm not gonna explain why it'll take too long, and i'm fed up of this thread and all the anger on it

Do you have a better adjective for someone who deliberately ignores grammar in an effort to annoy "teh d4m Gr4M4 N4Z15!!!"?

nah, on this thread i'm probably the only one not throwing insults or getting wound up

sure i threw a few semi-insults but only in retaliation to other insults, plus mine had at least *some* subtlety

You give yourself entirely too much (unfounded) credit. The only one here that is amazed by you....is you.

You give yourself entirely too much (unfounded) credit. The only one here that is amazed by you....is you.

oh boy more of you...

i never said amazed, i hate myself to be frank, probably because of people like you who insult me then just leave with no explanation (don't bother trying to explain why they insult me, you have no idea), and i said *some* subtlety, i.e only a complete retard wouldn't notice

Do you have a better adjective for someone who deliberately ignores grammar in an effort to annoy "teh d4m Gr4M4 N4Z15!!!"?

explain to me why grammar has anything to do with the argument?

oh boy more of you...

i never said amazed, i hate myself to be frank, probably because of people like you who insult me then just leave with no explanation (don't bother trying to explain why they insult me, you have no idea), and i said *some* subtlety, i.e only a complete retard wouldn't notice

It's your general arrogance throughout this thread. The pathetic attempts at changing the meaning of your statements after the fact. You seem to think you should be given more latitude and understanding than any other poster, and that the general failure of everyone else to grasp 'what you really meant' is a failure on their part, instead of your problem with communication. You post like a bull in a china shop and then insist there is subtlety in the crashing and general mayhem of your words. So yes, you give yourself entirely too much credit.

oh boy more of you...

More of who, precisely?

It's your general arrogance throughout this thread. The pathetic attempts at changing the meaning of your statements after the fact. You seem to think you should be given more latitude and understanding than any other poster, and that the general failure of everyone else to grasp 'what you really meant' is a failure on their part, instead of your problem with communication. You post like a bull in a china shop and then insist there is subtlety in the crashing and general mayhem of your words. So yes, you give yourself entirely too much credit.

1. if your not arrogant in a debate, people walk all over you

2. i haven't changed the meaning of any statements, people themselves have taken a different meaning to what i said (my bad) and i have tried to correct them

3. i think *all* posters should be given more latitude and understanding on this forum, as it's a very judgemental one sided forum

4. i know my problem is communication, i've said it before on some other thread as proof (not that it helps)

5. i post like a bull sure, but then i don't give myself credit i was commenting on the elephant like posts of 1 person in particular

6. your posts was arrogant too you know, and can you explain to me how i'm being more arrogant than any of the opposition posters please?

More of who, precisely?

Yes, I was wondering that as well...I don't recall posting in this thread, so:confused:

Ah, unless he, in all his subtle wit, categorises me into the group of antagonists to his protagonist in this love slash horror story he is unfolding before us.

Yes, I was wondering that as well...I don't recall posting in this thread, so:confused:

Ah, unless he, in all his subtle wit, categorises me into the group of antagonists to his protagonist in this love slash horror story he is unfolding before us.

i just meant more people getting in on this thread, or at least the particular debate i'm in, which, as someone mentioned earlier, is being taken really seriously

same reaction you get when your chopping wood of something like it and another truck loads comes, i just can't believe so many people like to "bash the bigot" as someone called me

i just meant more people getting in on this thread, or at least the particular debate i'm in, which, as someone mentioned earlier, is being taken really seriously

same reaction you get when your chopping wood of something like it and another truck loads comes, i just can't believe so many people like to "bash the bigot" as someone called me

That would imply you're actually involved in discussing the the thread topic. You've spent the last 24 hours on this thread discussing you. And how unfair everybody is to you.

That would imply you're actually involved in discussing the the thread topic. You've spent the last 24 hours on this thread discussing you.

it's what people wanted to discuss, or attack at least so i defended myself

you don't even know anything about me, for all you know i've just made a strawman out of myself, so stop trying to make this so personal

1. if your not arrogant in a debate, people walk all over you That's a foolish attitude to take. There is a vast difference between knowing your stuff, and arrogance. You've taken the mistake approach that arrogance = the former.

2. i haven't changed the meaning of any statements, people themselves have taken a different meaning to what i said (my bad) and i have tried to correct them

3. i think *all* posters should be given more latitude and understanding on this forum, as it's a very judgemental one sided forum You are responsible for communicating your ideas to the general public on this forum...it is not up to us to sit at your feet and wait for you to inform us of the particular definitions you had in mind. And you've done a piss poor job of communicating yourself, quite frankly, mostly due to the fact that you keep insisting people should have known from the beginning what you meant.

How long have you been around this forum, hmmm? This is not a forum for the slow witted, and the slack of debate. State yourself clearly, back yourself up, and defend yourself. Or stick to the social threads. That is not a 'one sided' or 'judgmental' standard, it applies to every person here. Niether you, nor anyone else coming here deserves any sort of latitude. Suck it up princess.

4. i know my problem is communication, i've said it before on some other thread as proof (not that it helps) Recognising a problem is good. Using that as an excuse to continue with poor communication is not. If you aren't up to task, then lurk for a while, and see how some of the better posters do it. We all struggle with communication, this is a universal problem. It takes work to get better at it. So once again, suck it up.

5. i post like a bull sure, but then i don't give myself credit i was commenting on the elephant like posts of 1 person in particular

6. your posts was arrogant too you know, and can you explain to me how i'm being more arrogant than any of the opposition posters please?
Like I said..there is arrogance and there is knowing your stuff. They may look the same to you, but I assure you they are not. Your posts have been slapshod and arrogant. Many (not all, I'm not saying everyone here is a better poster than you) of the arguments facing you have been articulated well, and have made some excellent points you have mostly glossed over.

The trouble is, you're getting too pissed off to admit that perhaps you didn't really think this out that much, and you're defending from a position you haven't quite solidified, so it only follows that your replies are going to be shaky.

And yes, sometimes I'm unbearably arrogant (stop snickering Dobbs, that's right, I said sometimes! :D), and sometimes I talk out of my ass, and sometimes my arguments are shit too. We all get days like that, or topics we don't really have thought out, or that simply don't really interest us that much. But at some point you just have to throw up your hands and say, 'okay, whatever, alright, I'm not sure I can agree with you, but I don't have enough to back myself up either'.

it's what people wanted to discuss, or attack at least so i defended myself

No, dear - it's what you've insisted be discussed.

2nd paragraph doesn't make sense, nice try though. Maybe one day you'll be able to have a nice reasonable debate with someone rather than try and shove your opinion down their throat because you think their stupid/sexist or whatever
If you dont see sense, that's again one of those 'more your concern than mine' things. I of course can have nice reasonable debates with someone and in fact do so whenever it happens that I'm debating someone capable of such.
As for shoving opinions down peoples' throats, you clearly have misunderstood the way a discussion forum works. What happens is people post comments, most usually comments containing their opinions. You yourself have done this several times in this very thread. Quite aside from such posting of opinions being a large part of the whole point of this (and indeed most) discussion forums, it doesnt count as 'shoving opinions down peoples' throats' because no one is obliged to visit the forum, much less to read any of the opinions posted therein.

you don't even know anything about me, for all you know i've just made a strawman out of myself, so stop trying to make this so personal

1) You've just admitted you've made this about you.
2) You've asked other people not to make it personal.

Can you see the contradiction here? Please tell me you see it.

To clean up my statement from earlier:
Quote: "Now we all know that there is no such thing as rape or sexual crimes because all women really want it, and they want it hard and rough."
The dickhead that said that should rot in hell

That's a foolish attitude to take. There is a vast difference between knowing your stuff, and arrogance. You've taken the mistake approach that arrogance = the former.

You are responsible for communicating your ideas to the general public on this forum...it is not up to us to sit at your feet and wait for you to inform us of the particular definitions you had in mind. And you've done a piss poor job of communicating yourself, quite frankly, mostly due to the fact that you keep insisting people should have known from the beginning what you meant.

How long have you been around this forum, hmmm? This is not a forum for the slow witted, and the slack of debate. State yourself clearly, back yourself up, and defend yourself. Or stick to the social threads. That is not a 'one sided' or 'judgmental' standard, it applies to every person here. Niether you, nor anyone else coming here deserves any sort of latitude. Suck it up princess.
Recognising a problem is good. Using that as an excuse to continue with poor communication is not. If you aren't up to task, then lurk for a while, and see how some of the better posters do it. We all struggle with communication, this is a universal problem. It takes work to get better at it. So once again, suck it up.

Like I said..there is arrogance and there is knowing your stuff. They may look the same to you, but I assure you they are not. Your posts have been slapshod and arrogant. Many (not all, I'm not saying everyone here is a better poster than you) of the arguments facing you have been articulated well, and have made some excellent points you have mostly glossed over.

The trouble is, you're getting too pissed off to admit that perhaps you didn't really think this out that much, and you're defending from a position you haven't quite solidified, so it only follows that your replies are going to be shaky.

And yes, sometimes I'm unbearably arrogant (stop snickering Dobbs, that's right, I said sometimes! :D), and sometimes I talk out of my ass, and sometimes my arguments are shit too. We all get days like that, or topics we don't really have thought out, or that simply don't really interest us that much. But at some point you just have to throw up your hands and say, 'okay, whatever, alright, I'm not sure I can agree with you, but I don't have enough to back myself up either'.

i'm working on the communication thing, and have been for a long time, so there's not much i can do sorry:(

i understand what you mean by arrogance now and i suppose that's what i've been doing, it's because whenever i tried modesty people don't take my opinion seriously, even though the same opinion is seen as a good one when i'm arrogant about it, i suppose i got the "knowing your stuff" act right those times

this seemed like a more laid back debating forum than many i've seen, so i assumed it welcomed those of the slow wit etc. not that i am one:mad: i just have my weak areas

i'm getting too pissed off and not thinking about it much, because i didn't expect such a response to a obviously uninformed vague opinion sorry

i thought i threw my hands up a while ago, must be the communication thing again, so that's why i got so annoyed when people started throwing abuse directly at me and thats why i thought they were infact the prejudice ones

so i officially throw in the towel, wave the white flag or any other ways of saying it, but i would like to say (other than my first post) that no one had a nice attitude towards me at all, and that incites hatred which can be a major problem

thanks for taking me seriously:)

If you dont see sense, that's again one of those 'more your concern than mine' things. I of course can have nice reasonable debates with someone and in fact do so whenever it happens that I'm debating someone capable of such.
As for shoving opinions down peoples' throats, you clearly have misunderstood the way a discussion forum works. What happens is people post comments, most usually comments containing their opinions. You yourself have done this several times in this very thread. Quite aside from such posting of opinions being a large part of the whole point of this (and indeed most) discussion forums, it doesnt count as 'shoving opinions down peoples' throats' because no one is obliged to visit the forum, much less to read any of the opinions posted therein.

you honestly didn't get what i meant? fair enough i thought i made it clear:(

i meant you're "debating style" is very shovey down throaty, if you erase the fact that i could just not listen as you put

No, dear - it's what you've insisted be discussed.

why the condescending "dear" there eh? you haven't discussed anything with me so surely you can't be so...right about things unless you prove it?

you honestly didn't get what i meant? fair enough i thought i made it clear:(

i meant you're "debating style" is very shovey down throaty, if you erase the fact that i could just not listen as you put

I'm completely convinced that you are not qualified to offer useful instruction or advice on the art of communication, so please do not be disappointed if I dont appear to place any importance on your assesment.

Umm...I think he IS joking. I thought about warning him most people would take him seriously. Can we stop ALWAYS assuming soviestan is serious?

He's said far worse things in complete seriousness. There's no reason to assume he wasn't being serious then.