RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Giraffe]

So you think my post was taking issue with the fact that you thought Dio and Darmund were being bigoted and the OP was lying, and not the manner in which you expressed your disagreement? If only you'd had some way of knowing this wasn't the case, for example my second post:

Because it's not your actual views that I'm criticizing, it's the terrible, ineffective way you express them. How can that be a lie? Do you think I secretly believe you are wonderfully eloquent and effective but have instead embarked on a disinformation campaign to discredit you?

And yet you've followed up with more posts asserting that I was calling you insane solely based on your position on this issue, an assertion with no evidence for and quite a bit against. Some might even go so far as to call it a lie. You, for example.

I wouldn't, though. See, like most people, I get that people can have different reads on the same situation and when they express differing views, they aren't lying, just interpreting things differently.

The reason you are so comically useless in these threads is that you obviously don't get that. So all your bluster and paragraph after paragraph of dramatic accusations just looks silly to those of us who don't have the crazy-Finn blinders on.

 

[Guinastasia]

Finn is starting to remind me of DanielintheWolvesden. Especially with the whole "Big Lie" bullshit.

Although I don't remember Daniel being QUITE so foaming at the mouth.

 

[sleeping]

According to this article, about 40 U.S. states have "rape by fraud" laws.

That's actually really interesting because the situations involved are so ambiguous. For example, one woman realized that it wasn't her husband immediately but went along with it because she feared violence--in this case, neither party would have any way of indicating their motive to the other, and it would be difficult to prove rape. OTOH, one can also see how she would be justified in her actions during and after the act.

In the midst of the hysteria in the Boston area over the Boston Strangler murders in the '60s, there was a guy posing as a physician who specialized in calling up women, telling them he'd met them earlier at a party on Beacon Hill and wondered if they could get together.

Wait, so...what exactly was his "in"? And what does it have to do with the Boston strangler?

 

[Freudian Slit]

... you do realize that's his claim, not necessarily the gospel truth? And that the woman involved had a different claim? She claimed that he introduced himself as a Jewish bachelor (he's Muslim, and married), and that he was seeking a serious relationship. The court believed her, and found that would qualify as deception used to get sex, which is a crime.

It's fine to object to the law, but at least keep the facts straight.

She honestly believed that a guy she had sex with right after meeting was seeking a serious longterm relationship? I'm not saying people who have immediate sex are bad people, but that's not exactly a sure fire recipe for a long lasting relationship.

 

[Malthus]

OK, I'll try to explain my point better. The guy is initially charged with violent rape and indecent assault. Would he be charged with these crimes if the victim alleged that he lied to seduce her? If so the cops are being overzealous, as lying to obtain sex is not violent rape. If she said that he violently raped her and that is why he was initially charged that way, she was lying.
In either event, I understand that plea bargains happen all the time, I have just never heard of an assault case being bargained down to fraud, which is what people here are comparing the incident to. However, I am obviously not a lawyer and may just not be understanding something.

In order to properly address these questions, we would have to know a whole lot of facts not in evidence - at least, not in evidence to us.

Again, this objection is similar to others made above.

This thread seems to have the following overall trajectory:

1. OMG this is so racist. It's aparthied in action.

2. [analysis as to why it is logically difficult to distinguish this case for any other if there exists such a crime as "rape by fraud"]

3. Well, that may be so, but if you assume [all these facts we don't know - like that no Jew would ever be charged if their positions are reversed, or that similar laws in America have "never" been interpreted in the same way, or that the unknown facts surrounding the plea bargain demonstrate that the cops/"victim" were overzealous/liars and motivated by racism] then it is *still* horribly racist!

Well, yeah, I suppose if one assumes the cops or judge acted in a racist manner I suppose this is an example of the cops and judge acting in a racist manner.

My only point is that the intitial impression was incorrect - that the facts as we know them do not disclose any racism on the part of the court, or the cops, or of this law. Which is not of course to say that they are not racist. They may well be. Only that this particular set of facts is not a very good indication of it.

That said, I still do not think it is a good law. Rape by fraud ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to very narrow cases, to avoid injustice.

 

[kaylasdad99]

Judge is a "she," jftr.

 

[FinnAgain]

If only you'd had some way of knowing this wasn't the case, for example my second post

More dishonesty, or just more feigned stupidity?
You already pretended not to know the difference between factual claims and matters of opinion, now you're pretending that while you were talking about my views, you weren't actually talking about my opinions (which would be my views) but the facts that were under discussion.

Again, what is wrong with you?
Are you really and honestly expect me to believe that you don't understand "I believe that the best way for the peace process to go forward is to aim for something like the Clinton Bridging Proposal and each side should have viable agricultural and water rights." is a subjective view, whereas "the OP claimed that someone was jailed for being a Palestinian, and that was a lie." is an objective fact?

You're really confused about what the difference is between someone's personal views and facts?

2+2 = 4. is that a view or a fact?
Swiss is a far better cheese than cheddar. Is that a view or a fact?

Of course, your base accusation is full of shit too and I don't cast "accusations" or whatever the fuck you were spazing out about due to mere differences of opinion. But one thing at a time, first you can learn what facts are and what opinions are.
You used to be of at least passable intellect, I'm sure you can manage it.

 

[Bryan Ekers]

"Funny, he didn't shtupp Jewish...."

 

[FinnAgain]

Especially with the whole "Big Lie" bullshit.

Guin: you are a bovine mouthbreather whose post county doesn't disguise the fact that your brain is simply sub-standard. Your posts, reliably, can be replaced by a sustained mooing.
The fact that the lie that Giraffe (and a couple others) are using is a lie that they're hoping will gain traction if they lie enough is not of issue to you. The fact that I correctly called it what it is, why, that's just horrible.

Chew your cud.

Anyways, honestly Giraffe, you never used to be this stupid. I mean, you're going Full Retard here, and while it's impressive to watch you fling your own feces around, it's a bit embarrassing too.

The fact that your only response to disagreement or criticism is to reflexively call everyone liars and bigots shows how disconnected from reality you are.

Honestly, what's it going to take for you to stop lying? Seriously, have you just decided that the Big Lie demands that you lie constantly, or what? Don't you have at least enough personal integrity to cringe when you lie and call your lie "the fact"? Doesn't some part of you rebel against your level of dishonesty?

I know that the anti-Israel Brigade likes this lie and they repeat it a lot, but it's laughably false. The fact that many of them are bigots and do lie (of course, you've ignored the instances of bigotry and lying in this thread to spew your idiocy at me, naturally) doesn't make the fact that I point out their behavior somehow wrong.

Calling someone a liar for voicing their opinion of how you post on a given issue makes you look like a lunatic.

You never were such a craven coward as to lie about something and then retreat, like a whipped dog, to claims that your lies are merely an "opinion" and that pointing out that you're lying is a sign of mental illness when you're provably lying. If you're going to make shit up about someone, then at least man up and admit it. Whether or not something is factual is not an "opinion". You lied about me and claimed I did something I do not. That's not an "opinion", that's a lie.

It's fucking retarded of you to lie about me and then get your panties in an (even bigger) twist because, gorsh, you were just making shit up about me, but you were only making up an opinion. That's even lamer than the "hyperbole" crowd.

Because it's not your actual views that I'm criticizing, it's the terrible, ineffective way you express them. How can that be a lie?

Honest question. Are you trolling, or have you suddenly become mind-numblingly stupid? Your claim was fictional, made up, invented, bullshit. It was a lie. What, you think you're allowed to lie about how someone posts and not just their views, and then that's not a lie because... why, exactly?
Help me follow the trail-of-stupid that you're laying out here.

Of course, you always post screaming rage at anybody who doesn't support torturing kittens. Not that it's a lie, that's just my opinion. Right?
Honestly, why are you being so fucking retarded today?

Do you think I secretly believe you are wonderfully eloquent and effective but have instead embarked on a disinformation campaign to discredit you?

Again, why this level of stupid?
Rather obviously you have decided, for whatever reason, to lie about how I post in order to make a personal attack on me. This isn't rocket science here. Are you, perhaps, running a high fever?

 

[amanset]

Do you think FinnAgain has me on ignore?

Are you suggesting that this is a bad thing?

Probably not, but then again whatever I say is probably a lie anyway.

 

[Quint]

In order to properly address these questions, we would have to know a whole lot of facts not in evidence - at least, not in evidence to us.

Again, this objection is similar to others made above.

This thread seems to have the following overall trajectory:

1. OMG this is so racist. It's aparthied in action.

2. [analysis as to why it is logically difficult to distinguish this case for any other if there exists such a crime as "rape by fraud"]

3. Well, that may be so, but if you assume [all these facts we don't know - like that no Jew would ever be charged if their positions are reversed, or that similar laws in America have "never" been interpreted in the same way, or that the unknown facts surrounding the plea bargain demonstrate that the cops/"victim" were overzealous/liars and motivated by racism] then it is *still* horribly racist!

Well, yeah, I suppose if one assumes the cops or judge acted in a racist manner I suppose this is an example of the cops and judge acting in a racist manner.

My only point is that the intitial impression was incorrect - that the facts as we know them do not disclose any racism on the part of the court, or the cops, or of this law. Which is not of course to say that they are not racist. They may well be. Only that this particular set of facts is not a very good indication of it.

That said, I still do not think it is a good law. Rape by fraud ought, in my opinion, to be restricted to very narrow cases, to avoid injustice.

I have not called anyone a racist. The guy was not initially charged with rape by fraud, but with violent rape. I am hoping we can all agree that pretending to be a doctor or surgeon or magical healing rabbi is not violent rape. I fail to see how the police would arrest someone for violent rape going on the story that some fellow pretended to be someone he wasn't to get someone to sleep with him. That's the part that looks bad.

 

[Leander]

You guys are all going to HELL for making fun of a mentally ill person. You should be ashamed.

 

[Malthus]

I have not called anyone a racist. The guy was not initially charged with rape by fraud, but with violent rape. I am hoping we can all agree that pretending to be a doctor or surgeon or magical healing rabbi is not violent rape. I fail to see how the police would arrest someone for violent rape going on the story that some fellow pretended to be someone he wasn't to get someone to sleep with him. That's the part that looks bad.

I'm not saying you did; I was using your post as a spring-board to comment on the course of the argument in this thread generally.

As to the "violent rape" thing - he said/she said situations are difficult enough to parse; in this case, we simply have no idea what she said to the cops.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

So did you.

 

[Jackmannii]

Wait, so...what exactly was his "in"? And what does it have to do with the Boston strangler?

This story was recounted in Gerald Frank's "The Boston Strangler". He used it as a bizarre illustration of how on the one hand, women in the area were panicking over the murders and taking extraordinary security precautions, while at the same time many were leaving themselves vulnerable to this con artist.

If I understand your first question - his "in" was the line about having met them at some party or other (at the time there were a lot of parties on "the Hill", and women apparently figured they'd met him even if they couldn't remember his name). I'm sure he struck out a lot too, but persistence paid off.

 

[DSeid]

This doesn't make sense to me. This assumes the Palestinian pretended to be Jewish to get sex with this specific girl - how do you know that? If I were a Palestinian that could "pass" as a Jew, I'd do it in a heartbeat - wouldn't you? I'm black and I *always* check my ethnicity as "white" whenever I asked on forms. Should I be fined or imprisoned too because I misrepresented myself? I've gone to the DMV and shouted down a state employee when she tried to check that I was "black" when I had infact put white. Until there are compulsory lab exams to determine ethnicity, *I am* what I say I am and there really shouldn't be an argument about it. My view, in this case, is that the State has no business inquiring about my ethnicity at all.

What is the litmus test to determine whether an individual is Palestinian or Jewish? Is free speech protected in Israel or not?

- Honesty

The conviction was a plea bargain. He admitted to it is how we know it, apparently.

And it isn't too hard for a Palestinian to "pass" as a Jew if they want to. Jews come in all shapes and colors from Black to lily white and many other shades.

I don't get your lying. I can understand saying its none of their business, but lying? Why? Yes, lying on your forms at the DMV would be a problem.

Fraud is not protected speech.

 

[Villa]

He was convicted of Rape by Fraud. Which, like Statutory Rape, uses "Rape" to mean "Sexual Intercourse Without Consent of One of the Involved Parties" as opposed to the popular meaning of "Rape" as "Beat the **** out of a girl and have your way with her".

Well then the "popular meaning" covers only a small percentage of rapes, then.

 

[Guinastasia]

Seriously, what part of "under the law in question, dishonesty used to convince someone to have sex is rape by deception" is confusing you?
You do know that other nations actually have their own laws, right?

Must you be so anal?

Read the example Jimmy Chitwood gave again. It wasn't about this particular case. He asked, "what if THIS happened?" Just because the law in Israel considers getting someone to have sex with you by lying is rape doesn't mean it actually is.

At one point, there was no law against spousal rape. Did that mean that mean there was no such thing?

This is Israeli law is completely unjust and makes a mockery of true rape victims. Is the man a sleaze ball? Yes. Is he a rapist? No, not according to the actual definition of rape. (YES, I KNOW WHAT THE LAW SAYS. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GODDAMNED LAW.)

 

[Malthus]

I'm not saying racists are going to go out and have sex with people to try to get them locked up -- that would be a bit odd. But it creeps me out to think of a girl liking a guy up until she finds out that he's Jewish/Muslim/Catholic/whatever, at which point she wants to punish him. Imagine it in the context of 1950's America, where the nice Protestant girl meets a guy at a dance and is ga-ga for him until she learns that he's Jewish, at which point she tries to get him locked up. It's disturbing.

Point is that to prove this offence you'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) the person lied about their identity; (b) that this lie was believed; and (c) that 'but for' the lie, sex would not have taken place.

The person isn't getting nicked for being Jewish (or Arab), but for the lies.

It is a totally seperate issue as to whether lying in this manner ought to get folks criminally charged. As I've pointed out, I'm against it, because I think it leads to all sorts of bad unintended consequences.

BUT, once you have admitted that lying about being a rock star or a famous surgeon *should* get you charged, it is difficult to articulate a logical reason why lying about your ethnic identity should not. After all, many people (rightly or wrongly) care about ethnic/religious identity as much as they care about whether the other person has a good job, is famous, etc.

If I, as a married Jew, go to a church social for eligible Christian singles and swear up and down I'm a single Christian - and (unlikely as it seems) get laid from that - it simply isn't all that different from me swearing up and down I'm a famous surgeon. In both cases I'm knowingly lying about something I know the other person cares about, to get their consent.

Maybe women (or men) who care about my ethnic idenity are horribly racist; maybe women (or men) who care about me being a surgeon are unbearably shallow. Nonetheless, they have a perfect right to be racist and shallow when deciding who to have sex with.

 

[FinnAgain]

Oooh, burn!
Except, of course, the jackals who have been spewing at me can't get beyond the fact that I often point out dishonesty among the standard half-dozen or so hardcore anti-Israel posters on the board. They haven't even been able to show that I'm wrong about them.

But they have shown that they don't care about that actual dishonesty. When people like Red Fury link to forged transcripts, nobody cares. Or when he names everybody in the US government whose name sounds Jewish to him, and accuses them all of potential treason for no reason other than that they're Jewish, nobody cares. Or when lucy claims that it's perfectly reaosnable to suspect American Jews of treason and that they might very well betray America to Israel just like communists did for International Communism, nobody says anything. When Damuri admits that he's bigoted against Israel and automatically takes any incoming fact and tries to fit in into an anti-Israel narrative and has to fight against his bigotry, nobody cares. When people champion Jimmy Carter, nobody cares.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

As long as the bitches biting at my ankles can only bray angrily at me for calling out dishonesty and bigotry while they themselves can be bothered to do neither, then what the fuck should I care about their babbling? People who condone dishonesty and bigotry aren't exactly the first people who I rush to for council when figuring out how best to challenge dishonesty and bigotry.

Show me one person who takes people to task for their dishonesty and/or bigotry and/or anti-Semitism who is also gumming my ankles, and you might have a point. Otherwise all you have are a bunch of asshole arguing for why dishonesty, bigotry and racism should really be treated gently and politely and that people who don't do so are horrible.