Monster Cluster Eff

[Pakuni]

C'mon, now. You don't really want the trial after the execution, do you? You prefer guilty unless proven innocent?

I think the point he's trying to make is the assumption that a girl who gets intoxicated and/or invites casual sex is somehow culpable for being raped.
That's a pretty slippery slope - or at least one that it's impossible to  maintain logically - you're situating yourself upon.
I mean, what's that family killed by a drunk driver doing out in their minivan around midnight on a Saturday? Pretty reckless of them, if you ask me. Id' feel bad for them if it happened at midday, but the fact they were out so late tempers by sympathy.

[forgetful]

A little off topic.  But the players that were suspended here, were at the very very very least, involved in questionable behavior that placed the university in an extremely negative light.  A suspension is warranted in the least.

In comparison, a female soccer player from UCONN, gave a camera the middle finger after scoring a penalty shot.  Was removed from the team, scholarship revoked and forced to leave the university without any chance for appeal. 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/12/19/uconn-player-sues-over-punishment-for-middle-finger-incident.html

The football players should be very happy that they are not:  1.  In jail, 2. Careers and free education ended.

[muwarrior69]

A little off topic.  But the players that were suspended here, were at the very very very least, involved in questionable behavior that placed the university in an extremely negative light.  A suspension is warranted in the least.

In comparison, a female soccer player from UCONN, gave a camera the middle finger after scoring a penalty shot.  Was removed from the team, scholarship revoked and forced to leave the university without any chance for appeal. 

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2016/12/19/uconn-player-sues-over-punishment-for-middle-finger-incident.html

The football players should be very happy that they are not:  1.  In jail, 2. Careers and free education ended.

Sadly, the difference between soccer football (non-revenue sport) and real football (revenue sport).

[Lennys Tap]

I think the point he's trying to make is the assumption that a girl who gets intoxicated and/or invites casual sex is somehow culpable for being raped.
That's a pretty slippery slope - or at least one that it's impossible to  maintain logically - you're situating yourself upon.
I mean, what's that family killed by a drunk driver doing out in their minivan around midnight on a Saturday? Pretty reckless of them, if you ask me. Id' feel bad for them if it happened at midday, but the fact they were out so late tempers by sympathy.

That's nothing even remotely like what I was saying.

Time of day matters not at all. And let me reiterate. Being drunk does NOT make it OK for people to commit rape against you. And having consensual sex with a couple of guys doesn't mean you consented to having sex with several others. But put it all together and add a videotape that's not conclusive and it muddies the water - makes her a less reliable/believable witness. Someone less sympathetic to a jury of her peers. Which means no prosecution or a good chance acquittal if there is one.

[Pakuni]

That's nothing even remotely like what I was saying.

Didn't you write this:
I believe in personal responsibility. People who contribute to their own vulnerability get less sympathy from me when things go wrong.

Doesn't making the decision to be on the roads after midnight on a Saturday contribute to one's vulnerability to being victimized by a drunken driver? After all, stats show 31 percent of fatal DUI-related accidents occur between midnight and 3 a.m. over the weekend.
Doesn't the victim bear some personal responsibility for putting himself/herself in a vulnerable situation?

Of course, that sounds ridiculous. And is ridiculous. But that's where you've placed yourself.

[Lennys Tap]

Didn't you write this:
I believe in personal responsibility. People who contribute to their own vulnerability get less sympathy from me when things go wrong.

Doesn't making the decision to be on the roads after midnight on a Saturday contribute to one's vulnerability to being victimized by a drunken driver? After all, stats show 31 percent of fatal DUI-related accidents occur between midnight and 3 a.m. over the weekend.
Doesn't the victim bear some personal responsibility for putting himself/herself in a vulnerable situation?

Of course, that sounds ridiculous. And is ridiculous. But that's where you've placed yourself.

So you don't believe in personal responsibility. And if someone lying dead drunk in an alley has his wallet lifted he bears no responsibility and deserves the same amount of sympathy as someone whose wallet is pilfered when his room is broken into. I guess that's the ridiculous place where you guys live.

[Pakuni]

So you don't believe in personal responsibility. And if someone lying dead drunk in an alley has his wallet lifted he bears no responsibility and deserves the same amount of sympathy as someone whose wallet is pilfered when his room is broken into. I guess that's the ridiculous place where you guys live.

Yes, I do not believe in personal responsibility. That's what I wrote.

Here's a crazy thought ... crime victims deserve sympathy, especially victims of violent crime. There's no need to create a hierarchy of sympathy.
Doing so is just a form of victim blaming ... a completely unnecessary one at that.
And as for "personal responsibility," I don't believe any person is ever responsible for another person choosing to rape them. I guess we differ there.

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, I do not believe in personal responsibility. That's what I wrote.

Here's a crazy thought ... crime victims deserve sympathy, especially victims of violent crime. There's no need to create a hierarchy of sympathy.
Doing so is just a form of victim blaming ... a completely unnecessary one at that.
And as for "personal responsibility," I don't believe any person is ever responsible for another person choosing to rape them. I guess we differ there.

You're right. All rape accusers are rape victims. So all rape accusers (even when their own actions cause doubts about the accuracy of their accusations) deserve the same sympathy as all rape victims.

Sorry, but that logic escapes me.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I don't get the wallet analogy.  Violent crime is way different than property crime.  If a guy passes out in an alley and has his wallet stolen, I might have less sympathy for him.

If he was raped my sympathy would not be affected!

[forgetful]

I don't get the wallet analogy.  Violent crime is way different than property crime.  If a guy passes out in an alley and has his wallet stolen, I might have less sympathy for him.

If he was raped my sympathy would not be affected!

I think you should even separate rape from violent crime. 

If a guy got absurdly drunk and pissed off some guy that kicked the royal crap out of him (assault), I would have less sympathy for him.

If he was raped, my sympathy would not be affected. 

[Pakuni]

You're right. All rape accusers are rape victims. So all rape accusers (even when their own actions cause doubts about the accuracy of their accusations) deserve the same sympathy as all rape victims.

Sorry, but that logic escapes me.

So you're changing your position from rape victims to rape "accusers?"
That's some Chicos-esque goalpost maneuvering.

[real chili 83]

Hennepin County attorney considering reopening the case. 

[Benny B]

Scenario A: 10 year old girl gets caught in crossfire because the gangbangers shooting up her house we're aiming for her rival-gangbanging 17 year old brother.

Scenario B: Same as A except the girl is unscathed and the brother is lying dead from a bullet wound.


Someone please raise their hand like an idiot and tell me that a reasonable person would have the same sympathy for the brother in B as they would for the sister in A.

[Lennys Tap]

Scenario A: 10 year old girl gets caught in crossfire because the gangbangers shooting up her house we're aiming for her rival-gangbanging 17 year old brother.

Scenario B: Same as A except the girl is unscathed and the brother is lying dead from a bullet wound.


Someone please raise their hand like an idiot and tell me that a reasonable person would have the same sympathy for the brother in B as they would for the sister in A.

No "hierarchy of sympathy" allowed for violent crime victims - it's right there in the Pakuni Papers!

Add TAMU while you're at it. Since nobody deserves to be murdered, all victims MUST engender the same amount of sympathy. Otherwise you have a "murder bias".

[Benny B]

No "hierarchy of sympathy" allowed for violent crime victims - it's right there in the Pakuni Papers!

Add TAMU while you're at it. Since nobody deserves to be murdered, all victims MUST engender the same amount of sympathy. Otherwise you have a "murder bias".

Hmmmm... we could probably have a much more intelligent conversation on this topic simply arguing between the two of us  sarcastically.  I'll keep it going...

What does engender a sympathetic role have anything to do with murder bias?  Are you implying that transgender people can't be murderers, too?  Is it because someone wears a dress and high heels that she's not allowed to shoot up Christmas markets in Europe with a TEC-9?

[tower912]

The players caved and they are playing the game.   

[Lennys Tap]

Hmmmm... we could probably have a much more intelligent conversation on this topic simply arguing between the two of us  sarcastically.  I'll keep it going...

What does engender a sympathetic role have anything to do with murder bias?  Are you implying that transgender people can't be murderers, too?  Is it because someone wears a dress and high heels that she's not allowed to shoot up Christmas markets in Europe with a TEC-9?

Scenario A: While protesting at a soldier's funeral and carrying a "God Hates cute ones" poster a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by the fallen soldier's brother. He subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Scenario B: While marching in a 4th of July parade a high school band member is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by her jealous ex boyfriend. She subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Being a victim of a thrown bottle is a terrible thing. We all agree that it shouldn't happen to anyone. But equal amounts of sympathy for both victims?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yikes. I stepped away for a day and this really went off the rails.

So you don't believe in personal responsibility. And if someone lying dead drunk in an alley has his wallet lifted he bears no responsibility and deserves the same amount of sympathy as someone whose wallet is pilfered when his room is broken into. I guess that's the ridiculous place where you guys live.

I believe in personal responsibility. The young woman has zero responsibility for her rape. To suggest otherwise is misguided and blaming the victim. What the young woman does have responsibility for is the hangover she will get from drinking too much. The potential pregnancy that could have resulted from the "consensual" sex with the first two. Partial responsibility for an STD she might have contracted from the "consensual" sex (they also have responsibility to inform her if they are aware of it). The potential hit to her reputation if people see her. These are all things that are a direct result of her choosing to drink too much and have "consensual" sex with two people at the same party.

The responsibility for the rape is 100% on the men who did it. No questions asked. The rape is a direct result of their actions that they did TO her. Not because of any actions that she took. You can judge for the drinking and "consensual" sex if you think that makes her an immoral person (though that's funny because there a plenty of men on here that brag about getting drunk and hooking up with multiple women and no one seems to make a peep) but you can not place any responsibility for her own rape on her.  Unless of course you believe that rape is a reasonable response when someone is drunk and having consensual sex with your teammates. Or if you think that somehow by being drunk and consenting to sex with others that she forced the others to rape her.

Scenario A: 10 year old girl gets caught in crossfire because the gangbangers shooting up her house we're aiming for her rival-gangbanging 17 year old brother.

Scenario B: Same as A except the girl is unscathed and the brother is lying dead from a bullet wound.


Someone please raise their hand like an idiot and tell me that a reasonable person would have the same sympathy for the brother in B as they would for the sister in A.

This is a terrible analogy.

There are two reasons why we have less sympathy for the gangbanger than the sister:

1. Because he is a gangbanger, we view him as not as good of a person as the sister.
2. Because he is in a rival gang, he did something to provoke the shooting whereas the sister did nothing.

Because of these two reasons we feel the gangbanger deserved to die more than the sister did. A completely reasonable human thought process. If you have another reason why you have less sympathy for the gangbanger, I would love to hear it.

So let's apply this logic to the U of M case. Are you saying:

1. Because she got drunk and "consented" to sex with two people she is not a good person and thus less deserving of sympathy?
2. Because she got drunk and "consented" to sex with two people she provoked the other players to rape her?

And because of one or both of these reasons she is more deserving of being raped than another person?

No "hierarchy of sympathy" allowed for violent crime victims - it's right there in the Pakuni Papers!

Add TAMU while you're at it. Since nobody deserves to be murdered, all victims MUST engender the same amount of sympathy. Otherwise you have a "murder bias".

No. I have no issue with you having different amounts of sympathy for different victims of the same crime. Completely normal, human thing to do. My issue is with the logic behind why you have different sympathy for this victim. Honestly, what I have taken away from your argument has been "She was a drunk slut. I have less sympathy for drunk sluts. Her being a drunk slut provoked the players into raping her."

Scenario A: While protesting at a soldier's funeral and carrying a "God Hates cute ones" poster a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by the fallen soldier's brother. He subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Scenario B: While marching in a 4th of July parade a high school band member is hit in the eye by a bottle hurled by her jealous ex boyfriend. She subsequently loses sight in that eye.

Being a victim of a thrown bottle is a terrible thing. We all agree that it shouldn't happen to anyone. But equal amounts of sympathy for both victims?

Same as the gangbanger and his sister. We have less sympathy for the Westboro Baptist Church member because he is part of an organization that exists to spread hate and because he provoked it by protesting with a hateful message at a soldier's funeral.

Benny and Lenny, please think about what you have posted in the last day. To make your point, you have compared an 18 year old rape victim to a gangbanger and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Really think about that. The young woman in this case is not the gangbanger or WBC member from your examples. She is the sister or band member.

[Lennys Tap]

No. I have no issue with you having different amounts of sympathy for different victims of the same crime. Completely normal, human thing to do. My issue is with the logic behind why you have different sympathy for this victim. Honestly, what I have taken away from your argument has been "She was a drunk slut. I have less sympathy for drunk sluts. Her being a drunk slut provoked the players into raping her."

First, I'm afraid the "drunk slut" stuff is you projecting - I said nothing of the kind. The reason that I am less sympathetic to this particular victim is that her own bad, stupid, reckless (fill in whatever adjective you prefer) behavior has diminished her status from victim to accuser, made her less believable. Even with a video the DA (up until now anyway) isn't convinced her victimhood will stand up to scrutiny. Doubt about whether a person is indeed a victim = less sympathy for that person.

On the bigger issue (different amounts of sympathy for victims of the same crime) this is what I  hear you saying: if YOU deem a person to be bad for some reason (homophobia, gang member, etc.) you feel less sympathy for them if they're raped, murdered, etc. But nobody deserves to be raped or murdered, right? Are you saying it's their fault that they were raped or murdered? Is that what your "less sympathy" means? Of course not. But that's the faulty logic you tried to brand me with.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

First, I'm afraid the "drunk slut" stuff is you projecting - I said nothing of the kind. The reason that I am less sympathetic to this particular victim is that her own bad, stupid, reckless (fill in whatever adjective you prefer) behavior has diminished her status from victim to accuser, made her less believable. Even with a video the DA (up until now anyway) isn't convinced her victimhood will stand up to scrutiny. Doubt about whether a person is indeed a victim = less sympathy for that person.

Is all your trying to say that because she was drunk, her testimony isn't as reliable, ergo I can't be sure if she was a victim or not, and that is affecting my level of sympathy? But if I knew for a fact, that everything she said was the gospel truth (the drinking, the "consensual" sex with two people, and the rape) than I would have just as much sympathy for her as a victim who was sober and not having sex with other people at the party? If that's the case, I can understand that.

the sympathy I have for any alleged victim of any crime is mitigated by both the the likelihood that he/she is being truthful and the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way.

I remembered you said this earlier. The first part about "likelihood that s/he is being truthful" no issue there. The issue was with the second part, "the reckless behavior (if any) that put said person in harm's way."

What I am hearing when you say that is "because she got drunk and consented to sex with two guys at the same party, I have less sympathy." Is that correct? I'm honestly trying to understand, because you and I often end up finding that our arguments are about the vocabulary we use rather than the actual issue.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

On the bigger issue (different amounts of sympathy for victims of the same crime) this is what I  hear you saying: if YOU deem a person to be bad for some reason (homophobia, gang member, etc.) you feel less sympathy for them if they're raped, murdered, etc. But nobody deserves to be raped or murdered, right? Are you saying it's their fault that they were raped or murdered? Is that what your "less sympathy" means? Of course not. But that's the faulty logic you tried to brand me with.

My "less sympathy" means I value a gangbanger and a WBC member less than the average human being. A terrible thing to say but I am human. They don't deserve to raped or murdered but I am going to have less sympathy. It's a natural human response.

I don't see any reason to value this young woman less than the average human being. All I know about her is that she is in college and she has drank and had sex at least once in her life.

My less sympathy also means that I can make a logical connection between belonging to a gang and getting shot at by another gang. One caused the other. Its stupid beyond all reason but the connection is there. I'm also making the assumption that the gang he belongs to has committed some sort of action against the shooter's gang. I can also see the logical connection between shouting "God hates homos" during a soldier's funeral and getting a bottle thrown at you. Your action that you did to somebody caused them to do something back. Its not right. Person who threw the bottle still needs to be held accountable. But I am going to have less sympathy.

Here, there is no logical connection. Being drunk and consenting to sex with someone else is in no way connected to a person raping you. The young woman did nothing to provoke her own rape.

[Lennys Tap]

TAMU - On these matters you routinely assume things as facts that haven't been established as such. It has not been established that there was a rape or that the alleged victim is being totally truthful. The DA (at this point anyway) believes there is enough doubt not to bring charges, but you want me to react (and feel) as if it's an open and shut case. Because of some poor decisions on her part it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure if she's telling the truth. Whose fault or responsibility do you deem that to be?

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU - On these matters you routinely assume things as facts that haven't been established as such. It has not been established that there was a rape or that the alleged victim is being totally truthful. The DA (at this point anyway) believes there is enough doubt not to bring charges, but you want me to react (and feel) as if it's an open and shut case. Because of some poor decisions on her part it's unlikely we'll ever know for sure if she's telling the truth. Whose fault or responsibility do you deem that to be?

I'm not assuming anything. I have read the report in its entirety and agree with the university's findings. I have as much information as possible without physically being present at the scene.

I have not once asked you to assume anything as fact. At the beginning I was very intentional and said assuming everything that is being reported is true,  what would your thoughts be. I wasnt saying that they were true, I was asking what your thoughts would be if they were. Later I stopped using that line because by then I had read the report.

In fact in my most recent posts I repeatedly said that if you doubt the facts of the case I understand. I have no issue with that. The issue was with the comment about her "reckless behavior that put her in harms way."

[Lennys Tap]

I'm not assuming anything. I have read the report in its entirety and agree with the university's findings. I have as much information as possible without physically being present at the scene.

I have not once asked you to assume anything as fact. At the beginning I was very intentional and said assuming everything that is being reported is true,  what would your thoughts be. I wasnt saying that they were true, I was asking what your thoughts would be if they were. Later I stopped using that line because by then I had read the report.

In fact in my most recent posts I repeatedly said that if you doubt the facts of the case I understand. I have no issue with that. The issue was with the comment about her "reckless behavior that put her in harms way."

I confess I haven't read the report. Honestly, with work, Christmas, kids and grandchildren underfoot I probably won't for some time. To the extent that her account proves (at least to me) to ring true or untrue my meter will slide in either direction. Given the presence of a videotape only an indictment and conviction will totally convince me. And whether you like it or not, her admission that she was drunk and had consensual sex with "those guys" but not "those guys" makes her case more difficult to prove. You may think that's unfair, bigoted, sexist or whatever, but my guess is that's the reason the prosecutor has been reluctant to indict up until now. The last word is yours - Merry Christmas.

[Benny B]

Benny and Lenny, please think about what you have posted in the last day. To make your point, you have compared an 18 year old rape victim to a gangbanger and a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Really think about that. The young woman in this case is not the gangbanger or WBC member from your examples. She is the sister or band member.

Wrong.  I have no dog in this hunt, and I've made no such analogy.  I merely pointed out the fact that most people do sympathize differently with victims of crime/violence depending upon the circumstances.  Apparently, you do understand that now.  You're welcome.  But what you're still failing to grasp is that you can have varying feelings without assessment of whether or not it was deserved.

You want to build strawmen, go right ahead; but I'm the owl watching over your barn, not the crow eating your corn.