|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| quot;] And stop falsifying my quotes and pretending that you know what is in my mind. You wouldn't like it if I started making up allegations about what you said, so cut it out. |
I'm not falsifying your quotes. I'm quoting you. There's a difference. And besides, what I would or wouldn't like doesn't factor into your posting style at all, so don't expect your preferences to factor into mine. |
| Fox wrote: |
| "Nonsense," TheUrbanMyth would reply, "If you received such a catalogue, you're clearly a pedophile with a hankering for child porn. After all, the government says it confirmed such predispositions before sending the catalogues out. |
You put this in quotes which means that this was an actual quote of mine. Only problem with that is that it's not.
And I'm not expecting my preferences to factor into your replies I'm simply expecting you to not to make up quotes.
But to get back to topic since we are never going to agree on this. Two simple questions for you. Was what happened to Ritter justified or not? Why or why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| "Nonsense," TheUrbanMyth would reply, "If you received such a catalogue, you're clearly a pedophile with a hankering for child porn. After all, the government says it confirmed such predispositions before sending the catalogues out. |
You put this in quotes which means that this was an actual quote of mine. Only problem with that is that it's not. |
Perhaps it's time you acquainted yourself with what the word "would" means, TUM. It's inclusion means I couldn't possibly be attributing this quote to you, but was rather speaking about a counterfactual situation.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| But to get back to topic since we are never going to agree on this. Two simple questions for you. Was what happened to Ritter justified or not? Why or why not? |
He tried to commit a crime, and he should suffer any legal consequences from trying to commit a crime. Some people in the thread have said there's no victim, but that doesn't change the fact that he actively attepted to commit criminal activity. He just failed. Trying to commit a crime is still criminal though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| First of all when I made the above quote about "Googling" and "misrepresenting" I was speaking to bacasper, not to you. |
Okay. Given you quoted a post of his that had no actual text in it, I had assumed you were just being lazy and meant to address me. Sorry for the misunderstanding. |
It was downright clairvoyant to know all that just from an exclamation point  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
This article, which was a winner of a 2009 Sex-Positive Journalism Award, is apropos here.
The Great Porn Misunderstanding: Pornography Is Mostly About Fantasy, Not Reality
By Michael Bader, AlterNet. Posted October 28, 2008.
Robert Jensen writes about pornography like someone who doesn't know the code. He seems incapable of differentiating fantasy from reality. He keeps mistaking the reality of the sexual enactments depicted in gonzo porn with their meaning in fantasy to the men masturbating. If the woman on the screen is having 4 penises shoved into her, something that would demean and degrade any real woman reading Jensen's article, he automatically infers that the degradation must be the source of the male viewer's arousal. It isn't.
Jensen and other feminist critics of porn seem unable or unwilling to admit to the presence of an unconscious mind. This is the mind that animates our imaginations, that confers personal meanings on perceptions and events, and that ultimately is responsible for sexual arousal. I'm not talking about some Freudian mumbo-jumbo, but the fact that we interpret the world; we don't just objectively read it like we would a thermometer. When a woman sits at a caf� and gets turned-on by a big hairy biker standing at the cash register, she is inferring something about him, perhaps that he's tough, sexual, aggressive, and/or selfish. She's unconsciously interpreting the image. For reasons that have to do with her personal psychology, reasons about which she may well be unaware, these traits trigger her libido. In reality, this man might be gay, easily frightened, passive and solicitous. It doesn't matter. At that moment, her mind transforms a three-dimensional being into an object that stimulates her desire. She objectifies him.
This is what happens to each of us when we get aroused by an image, a body-type, a situation, or a story. Arousal happens in our minds, not out there in so-called reality. I might get aroused by the thought of being the President of the United States getting fellated under my desk while talking to a congressman on the phone, while you get turned on by the thought (or enactment) of a couple inviting discovery by having a hot "quickie" in a doorway. A woman I treated used to masturbate to the fantasy of being held down and sexually ravished against her will by the janitor in her office building, another by group sex with Mick Jagger. If these fantasies became realities, however, the fantasizers would likely feel something on a spectrum from uncomfortable to traumatic. Reality, however, doesn't matter. Our unconscious minds creatively interpret scenarios and perceptions that help us get aroused.
full article at link
It was just a fantasy. No victim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| It was just a fantasy. No victim. |
Do you feel that actively, knowingly, and truly attempting to commit a crime should not be in and of itself a crime? Should failure vindicate a potential criminal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| It was just a fantasy. No victim. |
Do you feel that actively, knowingly, and truly attempting to commit a crime should not be in and of itself a crime? Should failure vindicate a potential criminal? |
If the authorities can prove that Scott Ritter completely didnt know that the woman he was chatting with wasnt an adult police woman , then I say he should be convicted. The authorities would have to be mind readers to be able to do this however.
Lets say I go to a bar. I order a few drinks. My bar maid is cute and I try to pick her up. I say " guess what honey, Im a 17 years old virgin. Want to be my first?" Round after round of drinks I declare "Im 17". She just smiles and keeps serving me. In comes the alcohol beverage control people, they take the bars liqour license and fine the bar maid for serving a minor. Her defense is that Im actually 30 years old. Doesnt matter say the cops "he said over and over he was 17." No minor was served alcohol as no 15 year old girl was molested by Scott Ritter. Lets deal with actualities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| conrad2 wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| It was just a fantasy. No victim. |
Do you feel that actively, knowingly, and truly attempting to commit a crime should not be in and of itself a crime? Should failure vindicate a potential criminal? |
If the authorities can prove that Scott Ritter completely didnt know that the woman he was chatting with wasnt an adult police woman , then I say he should be convicted. The authorities would have to be mind readers to be able to do this however. |
So what you seem to be saying is he should be taken to court, and then a jury should be left to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to convict him based on whether or not the authorities can provide evidence which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he thought it was a child on the other side of the computer. If so, I agree.
| conrad2 wrote: |
| Lets say I go to a bar. I order a few drinks. My bar maid is cute and I try to pick her up. I say " guess what honey, Im a 17 years old virgin. Want to be my first?" Round after round of drinks I declare "Im 17". She just smiles and keeps serving me. In comes the alcohol beverage control people, they take the bars liqour license and fine the bar maid for serving a minor. Her defense is that Im actually 30 years old. Doesnt matter say the cops "he said over and over he was 17." No minor was served alcohol as no 15 year old girl was molested by Scott Ritter. Lets deal with actualities. |
Actually I think under the law, she would be required to card you if you said this. If you then produced ID that said you were 17, yes, I think it would technically be a crime for her to serve you. If you on the other hand produced ID that said you were really 30, we're no longer talking about an analogous case. If she didn't ask for your ID at all, then I actually do think she's breaking the law and could be tried.
Mind you, I should say that I think underage drinking laws are highly questionable, and that they should probably be abandoned. But this seems to be more a conversation about the law as it stands, rather than the law as it should be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scott Ritter was not acting out a fantasy. He was under the impression he was ejaculating, on camera, in front of a minor. That's illegal.
On the other hand, 15,16,17 year old girls are sexually (not psychologically) mature individuals, not kids, and these guys are not pedos and should not be lumped in with them in a legal sense.
Personally I think it's a bit 'predatory' for guys in their 40's, who have lived a lot longer and know the game a lot better, to go after these girls, and I'm think it should be illegal. But these guys aren't the pedophilic monsters they get made out to be. He should do his time but should not have to register as a sex offender. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richardlang
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bacasper and Fox and anyone,
What a wife attempting to hire a hitman even though she knows the person she's attempting to hire is a police officer? I'm just wanting to hear both of your takes on this scenario as it relates to Scott Ritter.
Perhaps Scott Ritter's possible defense ("I knew she was a cop" and the 'girl' was not a minor) and the wife's defense against hiring a hitman ("I knew the person I was soliciting as a hitman was a cop.") both boil down to saying, "I was really joking or playing with the cop." Is that what you'd say, bacasper? How about you, Fox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| richardlang wrote: |
bacasper and Fox and anyone,
What a wife attempting to hire a hitman even though she knows the person she's attempting to hire is a police officer? I'm just wanting to hear both of your takes on this scenario as it relates to Scott Ritter.
Perhaps Scott Ritter's possible defense ("I knew she was a cop" and the 'girl' was not a minor) and the wife's defense against hiring a hitman ("I knew the person I was soliciting as a hitman was a cop.") both boil down to saying, "I was really joking or playing with the cop." Is that what you'd say, bacasper? How about you, Fox. |
I think it's up to a jury to decide whether or not they believe the person is lying beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, if there is reasonable doubt, they should not convict.
With regards to the wife's case, I think it would be hard to believe her. What would she gain by acting out hiring a hitman if she knew it was a cop? I can't really fathom what her motive could be to behave in that way, and I think an average juror would have an equally hard time understanding it. As such, I'm not sure that defense would work very well.
With Mr. Ridder's case, it's slightly different. Maybe he really did know she was a cop, and really was just acting out a fantasy; people do act out sexual fantasies all the time after all. I think it's implausible -- especially given his past history -- but I think it's possible too. So, I could see a jury possibly acquitting him on those grounds, as there's a possible motive for him to still do what he did even if he knew it was a cop.
Convicting an innocent man is a far worse miscarriage of justice than acquitting a guilty one. I think this should always be kept in mind. It's always a sad thing when we have to lock up one of our fellow men, and we need to exercise caution when doing so. I think it's almost certain -- especially in light of his past transgressions and the fact that he avoided serious reprocussion for them -- that he really thought this girl was a minor and thus was actively attempted to commit a crime. In fact, I think it's certain beyond a reasonable doubt. I can understand why a juror might decide otherwise, though, and if this had been his first offense, I'd actually probably feel there was a reasonable doubt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| richardlang wrote: |
bacasper and Fox and anyone,
What a wife attempting to hire a hitman even though she knows the person she's attempting to hire is a police officer? I'm just wanting to hear both of your takes on this scenario as it relates to Scott Ritter.
Perhaps Scott Ritter's possible defense ("I knew she was a cop" and the 'girl' was not a minor) and the wife's defense against hiring a hitman ("I knew the person I was soliciting as a hitman was a cop.") both boil down to saying, "I was really joking or playing with the cop." Is that what you'd say, bacasper? How about you, Fox. |
Your analogy doesnt hold up because killing your husband is an illegal act, masturbating online in front of an adult is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Old Gil"]Scott Ritter was not acting out a fantasy. He was under the impression he was ejaculating, on camera, in front of a minor. That's illegal.
And you can know Scott Ritters mindset without any doubt? You can read minds?
Old Gil:
On the other hand, 15,16,17 year old girls are sexually (not psychologically) mature individuals, not kids, and these guys are not pedos and should not be lumped in with them in a legal sense.
Agreed. But in the US men who have done nothing more than urinate in public have had to register as sex offenders. This is another reason why I dont trust the cops and government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| It was just a fantasy. No victim. |
Do you feel that actively, knowingly, and truly attempting to commit a crime should not be in and of itself a crime? Should failure vindicate a potential criminal? |
If it can be proven that he attempted to commit a crime against a real, identifiable victim, then yes, it should be prosecuted. That was not, however, the case here.
| richardlang wrote: |
bacasper and Fox and anyone,
What a wife attempting to hire a hitman even though she knows the person she's attempting to hire is a police officer? I'm just wanting to hear both of your takes on this scenario as it relates to Scott Ritter.
Perhaps Scott Ritter's possible defense ("I knew she was a cop" and the 'girl' was not a minor) and the wife's defense against hiring a hitman ("I knew the person I was soliciting as a hitman was a cop.") both boil down to saying, "I was really joking or playing with the cop." Is that what you'd say, bacasper? How about you, Fox. |
Your question, which I have bolded, is difficult to understand not only grammatically, but also because I do not see what a woman's marital status has to do with it. So please clarify: is her victim imaginary or a real person?
| Old Gil wrote: |
Scott Ritter was not acting out a fantasy. He was under the impression he was ejaculating, on camera, in front of a minor. That's illegal.
On the other hand, 15,16,17 year old girls are sexually (not psychologically) mature individuals, not kids, and these guys are not pedos and should not be lumped in with them in a legal sense. |
You bring up another interesting twist: what if the 15-year-old were in a jurisdiction where she could legally consent to sex? How was Ritter supposed to know she was not, even if he could be sure of her age? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old Gil
Joined: 26 Sep 2009
Location: Got out! olleh!
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
You bring up another interesting twist: what if the 15-year-old were in a jurisdiction where she could legally consent to sex? How was Ritter supposed to know she was not, even if he could be sure of her age? |
I'm pretty sure 15 is only legal in certain states if a. there's parental approval and b. it's for marriage. Not 100% though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
conrad2
Joined: 05 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old Gil wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
You bring up another interesting twist: what if the 15-year-old were in a jurisdiction where she could legally consent to sex? How was Ritter supposed to know she was not, even if he could be sure of her age? |
I'm pretty sure 15 is only legal in certain states if a. there's parental approval and b. it's for marriage. Not 100% though. |
So many interesting legal possiblities with this one. What if the mastubator is in front of the computer in a country where the age of consent is 15 or lower? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
