Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#926,076
@926,073 (D)
Lol holy fuck, it's fascinating to see how you do this shit in real time. He raped someone! No he didn't, that's not what rape is. Oh so you think it's ok to grab her ass??
Of course it's not appropriate to grope kids you dipshit but that's not the point of OP's outrage. He seems horrified that the guy said rape requires penetration but he's simply stating a fact.
Anonymous C double-posted this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^][v]#926,077
What does that nonsensical sentence even mean? Rape requires penetration. Read literally any legal definition of the word. I already posted two of them in this thread.
This is the problem with you liberal lynch mobs. You have no idea what the words you use mean. That priest in the OP's link is a piece of shit. That still doesn't mean that if you (anon F) get very drunk at a party one night and stupidly grope or fondle a woman's breast you should be labelled a rapist. Do you see the problem now with irresponsible use of very serious crimes? It DEVALUES the actual crime.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 11 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#926,274
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 55 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#926,285
@926,178 (C)
How do you feel about attempted rape? Sure let's call a crime what it is, but do you think the person should be held to a different standard for their behavior because they failed to actually commit a crime? If I drag a girl into a dark alley to rape her and she manages to get away, I'm innocent right? I still get to walk the streets and call myself a good person because I'm not a rapist?
You playing rape apologist by taking events out of context and ignoring intent doesn't help. Do you think priests that fondle kids sometimes have a different intent? Do you think sometimes old men like to jack off little boys as part of playtime and that's cool because nothing is being penetrated?
Everyone acts shocked when it comes out that Catholic clergy or Hollywood producers regularly take advantage of trust or position to molest people against their will. Everyone is puzzled how these things were "open secrets" that just never got reported all this time. It's this brand of contextless definitional "it's not a crime unless..." deflection that allows all those open secrets to go on so long.
Anonymous F replied with this 7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#926,286
@926,178 (C)
If you're TGcomix, please kill yourself immediately.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#926,289
> That still doesn't mean that if you (anon F) get very drunk at a party one night and stupidly grope or fondle a woman's breast you should be labelled a rapist.
No you should be labelled a sex offender.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^][v]#926,290
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,450
@926,297 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC) > I do think that an attempted crime should get less time than a successful one, and doesn't it generally?
That's probably a question for a courtroom and a specific set of circumstances. In some cases where damages factor into the sentencing, then maybe. In some cases attempted murder can result in a longer sentence than the murder itself would have. If you try to assassinate the President, do you think you'll get a lighter sentence for being a poor shot? It's hard to generalize because things are going to vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and with the type of crime and the circumstances surrounding it. That's all pretty wide of the point though.
The president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights mentioned in the OP is right that none of the abuse uncovered by the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report resulted in anyone being found guilty of anything. All the records the Church handed over are conveniently old enough to not be able to be prosecuted. If you haven't read the Grand Jury report, I would urge you to at least read the first five or six pages. (it's really long, but it reads like a really fucked up true crime story) What it does show is an organized and systematic attempt to cover up abuse by launching internal investigations designed to go nowhere and shuffling priests around to avoid prosecution. I don't think that's anything that should be ignored. Oh, and it describes rape. Real, actual rape with penetrations and everything.
The old guy who gets paid to defend the Catholic Church wants to distract everybody from what is happening by crying about how badly his friends are being treated in the press. If a journalist uses "rape" to characterize the assaults, too bad. Some of the complaints are about actual rapes and the repeated victimization of kids. This guy is just getting huffy because a few of the reports of over-the-pants touching might not fit the same legal definition.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,493
> but do you think the person should be held to a different standard for their behavior because they failed to actually commit a crime?
Under the law? Yes. Hence the standard being different under the law. Attempting to commit a crime is punished less severely than fulfilling that same crime.
I'd have thought this was self-evident but apparently it isn't to you.
> If I drag a girl into a dark alley to rape her and she manages to get away, I'm innocent right?
No, you're guilty of attempted rape. Stop being idiotic with language.
> I still get to walk the streets and call myself a good person because I'm not a rapist?
No, you get to be prosecuted for attempted rape because you're an attempted rapist. Stop being idiotic with language.
> You playing rape apologist by taking events out of context and ignoring intent doesn't help.
"Rape apologist"? Someone is explaining how the law works in Western democracies. Quick, let's resort to ad hominem attacks, as per the liberal playbook.
The only one "taking events out of context" is you with your stupid loaded "If I try but fail to rape someone I'm awesome right?" bullshit
> Do you think sometimes old men like to jack off little boys as part of playtime and that's cool because nothing is being penetrated?
Again it's fascinating watching how you guys do this shit in real time, how you completely shift the goalposts and blur what the issue actually is.
No, it's not "cool". It's very serious sexual abuse. Stop being an idiot.
> It's this brand of "it's not a crime unless..."
Otherwise known as knowing and following the legal principles and codex of Western civilization.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,494
"My lawyer advised me to tell you that what I am covering up is merely decades of child molestation, not child rape. The real tragedy here is the misuse of language."
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,498
@926,450 (H) > The old guy who gets paid to defend the Catholic Church
If born in an early time that old guy's job - To defend Hitler.
Similar to work Sarah Sanders does for Trump. Just a paid mouthpiece.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 59 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,513
> "My lawyer advised me to tell you that what I am covering up is merely decades of child molestation, not child rape. The real tragedy here is the misuse of language."
No, the tragedy is systematic child abuse and child rape, the perpetrators of which will never be brought to account while dipshit liberals keep shitting all over due process and irresponsibly hurling accusations at people without understanding what they're saying.
Normal person: "Scumbags will keep avoiding punishment so long as we keep obfuscating what crimes actually are"
Liberals: "Bullshit! You're a pedo too!! Rape apologist!! Which is the same as rapist!! You're a rapist!"
But keep up the virtue signalling.
Anonymous I replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,514
Da libz
Mr. Topo Gigio replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,516
why is this thread so dumb
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,524
@926,450 (H)
I believe that the Catholic church covered up the rape and molestation of thousands of children. That doesn't change what rape is. What a weird response.
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 28 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,550
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
There are women out there that when groped and rape attempted yet failed to penetrate - They can be so traumatized for the rest of their life, that the failure to penetrate does not help them live a peaceful life.
Maybe the same as attempted murder vs murder. The attempt can be much worse than death, because one has to still Live and the other case the person is dead and no longer feels pain.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,554
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,558
@926,516 (Mr. Topo Gigio)
Because it is being actively posted in by a person whose schtick is to be antagonistic, stupid, and obstinate (more like abstinent amirite).
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,562
@926,274 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
So are men only raped if they are penetrated? I feel like I've read posts by you about women raping men where the woman was penetrated but the man was not.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,563
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
No I believe an enveloping is a rape even though it probably isn't the right word for it
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,564
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I mean even if isn't technically rape, it should be treated like rape
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,566
Wait.
So this court case took place in Pennsylvania.
"In Pennsylvania, rape is a crime where the defendant forcibly or under threat of force engages in sexual intercourse with another person. Rape can also occur if the defendant has substantially impaired the victim's ability to control his/her conduct by intoxicating the victim without his/her knowledge or if the victim has a mental disability." https://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-rape-laws.html
The US DoJ has the requirement of penetration but the state of Pennsylvania does not, and it is Pennsylvania law which is relevant here. Thanks.
chill dog !!81dzJNNYL double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,568
@926,564 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
But you just said penetration is required for there to be a rape. The victim is not penetrated in that scenario.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,569
@previous (chill dog !!81dzJNNYL)
I still consider it to be close to rape at least. Even if it technically is not
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,570
> Wait. > So this court case took place in Pennsylvania. > "In Pennsylvania, rape is a crime where the defendant forcibly or under threat of force engages in sexual intercourse with another person. Rape can also occur if the defendant has substantially impaired the victim's ability to control his/her conduct by intoxicating the victim without his/her knowledge or if the victim has a mental disability." >https://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-rape-laws.html > > The US DoJ has the requirement of penetration but the state of Pennsylvania does not, and it is Pennsylvania law which is relevant here. Thanks.
What on earth are you talking about? The very link you not only posted but even quoted from says that penetration is a requirement of rape in Pennsylvania state law. Re-read again each of the 5 scenarios in the 'statutory definition of rape' in your link because I think you haven't properly understood what you read.
(Edited 34 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,581
@926,493 (C)
LOL Calm down there, bro. A couple people discussing credible accusations of rape isn't a lynch mob. No one is moving any goalposts or altering the principles of western law. Are you going to keep playing language police until we refer to them as "attempted rapist priests" or "sexual assault priests" instead?
wade !gj/9XnPSD. joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,582
The charge of attempted rape can stick with no penetration.
Speaking from personal experience.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,583
@926,581 (H)
You've dodged every single factual point and gone to phase 3 of the playbook, the "LOL u mad bro" stage. You're a moron. Stick to your perpetually outraged Twitter mobs.
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,584
@previous (C)
There's no playbook. Your factual points consist of hyperbole and pretending there's some kind of liberal conspiracy to redefine rape.
I'm sorry if you're crying for some priest who only touched kids is being lumped in the other priests who actually raped kids, but you policing people's language doesn't change anything.
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,585
> I'm sorry if you're crying for some priest who only touched kids
You prove his point with dumb shit like this.
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,586
@previous (Q)
Maybe he is crying somewhere. I'll have to go find a legal definition of crying though so I don't get accused of trying to redefine western civilization's legal concept of crying.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,593
"Your honor, the defendant stands accused of rape"
"Why, did he rape someone?"
"No your honor, but stop being hyperbolic".
> I'm sorry if you're crying for some priest who only touched kids is being lumped in the other priests who actually raped kids
Minus the "crying", you are correct, I am saying people who have committed rape should not be "lumped in" (your very telling phrase) with people who haven't committed rape. Because by doing so you lessen and devalue the seriousness of rape.
> but you policing people's language doesn't change anything.
I know, you've made it abundantly clear you have zero knowledge of the law and even less interest in learning about it, and so you characterize it as "policing language". What you want is to hurl accusations and insults and say "lol kill yourself, u mad bro". That's your level and it's what you default to when someone pushes back on your bullshit.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,611
@previous (C)
You seem to feel that our discussion of a report detailing rapes might devalue rape because the report also contains details of attempted rape and sexual assault? Do you think Minichan is a court of law? Why are you pretending general internet discussions are on par with testimony given in court?
> lol kill yourself, u mad bro
No one has said that. Now you're making up insults to pretend other people said them to you.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,613
> Hmm, if you're TGcomix and you're right wing then maybe this is a sign that the right wing needs to fucking die and go to Hell.
Congratulations on keeping up your record of being wrong in literally every single post you have made in this thread.
(Edited 40 seconds later.)
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 23 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,619
@previous (C) > So now you're reduced to admitting that what you write on here is shamelessly ignorant shit that gets torn apart in a less retarded setting.
If anything is getting torn apart here it's your bizarre claims and persecution narrative. You seem to be the one playing the victim while hurling insults and ad hominem attacks. You seem to be the one trying to police everyone's language while pretending you're beset by an imaginary liberal lynch mob. You seem to be the defending rapists while pretending to be protecting the definition of the word.
Stop making up problems.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,620
50 get
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 40 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,621
@926,619 (H) > bizarre claims and persecution narrative
From the guy who says people who have not committed rape should be "lumped in" with people who have committed rape.
You've started flailing and it's become embarrassing to watch you do it. I'm out. You're a moron.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#926,632
@926,580 (C)
Thank you for saying this. I thought that I was crazy or something
Anonymous H replied with this 7 years ago, 4 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#926,739
@926,621 (C)
You need to come back. You haven't anyone decadent yet.
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 9 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#926,840