So you're saying your problem is with Finn's word choice, not actual message?
That's a little shallow, dontcha think? Can't you listen to what he says without obsessing over minor details in the way he says it?
So you're saying your problem is with Finn's word choice, not actual message?
That's a little shallow, dontcha think? Can't you listen to what he says without obsessing over minor details in the way he says it?
I can't keep up with all the shit in all the pages, but one aspect I think hasn't been addressed is the extent to which Kashur went to 'convince' the woman he was Jewish.
According to this (and I've seen same quoted words in other articles): According to Kashur, he was exiting a grocery store in downtown Jerusalem around midday when a woman in her late 20s began to talk to him. "I would say she set upon me. She was interested in my motorcycle and so we talked. I didn't pretend. I said my name is Dudu because that's how everybody knows me. My wife even calls me that."
Is there anything Kashur did beyond telling her his name to make her be convinced of Jewishness (and henceforth fuck-worthy)?? I've also seen reports where the name Daniel is the basis for her assumption of Jewish fuck-worthiness - is Dudu approximate interpretation and/or translation for Daniel in language of Israel? I honestly have NO idea
Is it simply the name/nickname that had her so gung-ho for the coitus? Is 'Dudu', or even Daniel, simply not allowed for anyone other than a Jew (in Israel where crime occurred anyways). I ask this ignorantly because I cannot fathom a person being judged by a name only. Anyone? Honestly, there just *has* to be more to this.
Surely Israel's courts need more than that? Any cites/details/explanation about what ~extent Kashur went to to 'prove and demonstrate Jewishness deceptively' to the fucked-over woman? Some regimes have used the yellow 'stars' in the past - are names in that category for defining nationality/religion in Israel? (not meaning as an insult or fateful reference)
If this was asked/answered previously, truly sorry - the usual 'everyone hates Israel' BS admittedly swamped me and had me glossing quickly past lengthy quoted entries that make bulk of thread, it seems. No help in that, ever.
There isn't enough details in the various news accounts to know. Given that the fellow pled guilty, there would not be much of a court transcript to go on - if you plead guilty, the fact of your guilt tends to be assumed.
There is no reason to assume that the account of a guy who plead guilty of deception is 100% truthful as to the content of that deception. If the deception involved was really no deception at all, why did he plead guilty?
F
FinnAgain
Guest
J
Jackmannii
Guest
This article on the ramifications of rape by fraud mentions a 1993 case in Israel, where a man named Raine Marcus who posed as a rabbi, was found guilty in nine cases of sexual assault and fraud (supposedly he made claims about "curing" the women).*
Probably something to do with Jim Crow. :dubious:
*of what, it is hard to tell since I can't find details of the case online.
Probably something to do with Jim Crow. :dubious:
*of what, it is hard to tell since I can't find details of the case online.
D
Diogenes the Cynic
Guest
How would they have ever even known about it?
PrettyVacant
New member
I just assume he and Alesan are paid employees of the Israeli State, such blindness is too irrational otherwise.
For exactly the same reason. Plenty of folks *in* Israel are heavily critical of Israeli society (that is, in fact, one of the attractive points of that country). Those who are already critical, are going to be predisposed to viewing this matter in that light.
It is IMHO a big mistake to view lots of internal criticism of a society as proof that the society is, in fact, objectively more worthy of criticism. The most ominous societies lack internal criticism.
B
Bryan Ekers
Guest
And as Jews, to go by the evangelical goyim when they start yapping about the Rapture, we'll be the ones they've left behind.
Here's the part I have a big problem with:
"Kashur was originally accused of violent rape and indecent assault, but later accepted the lesser charge under a plea-bargain after prosecutors received evidence suggesting the encounter was consensual."
Why was he initially charged with a violent crime? Did she misrepresent events, or were the police and prosecutors overzealous in their application of the law? Optics are pretty bad from my point of view.
"Kashur was originally accused of violent rape and indecent assault, but later accepted the lesser charge under a plea-bargain after prosecutors received evidence suggesting the encounter was consensual."
Why was he initially charged with a violent crime? Did she misrepresent events, or were the police and prosecutors overzealous in their application of the law? Optics are pretty bad from my point of view.
I disagree. While some states specifically enumerate particular kinds of fraud which would qualify, all do not. See page 22, regarding the laws of Tennessee and Alabama:
[Emphasis added]
I do not see how this differes materially from the Israeli law in issue.
F
FinnAgain
Guest
Good to see that idiots like you will allow any dishonesty as long as it supports your anti-Israel narrative, and then you'll get upset when called on it. Due to how very honest and honorable you are.
Of course, the OP was lying, nobody was "jailed for being Palestinian", and you know that. The OP knew that, too. But you'll defend someone lying in order to say something negative about Israel because that's just the kind of person you are. (Honorable, and honest, too!)
If you take the Haaretz article at face value (assuming there weren't other mitigating circumstances), then why was he not convicted of fraud instead of rape?
According to the article:
The only precedent appears to deal with coercion more than deception:
A
amanset
Guest
Where? In this thread?
I'm not sure. Try asking the Norfolk 4, who all plead guilty to the same rape murder, that a fifth person later admitted he committed alone. Oh, and the police also tried to railroad three other men for the same crime.
S
sqweels
Guest
The point is that she gave her consent. Throughout the sex act, consent was maintained.
A woman cannot retroactively withdraw her consent because a man cannot retroactively... withdraw.
A woman cannot retroactively withdraw her consent because a man cannot retroactively... withdraw.
Babale said:
Yep, pretty much.
I guess it's a little shallow, but it's not entirely shallow. Delivery matters, nearly as much as the message itself. Look back through this thread and see how many posters have parodied or otherwise criticised Finn's ranty-shouty 'bigotbigotbigotbigotbigot' posting style. Style is important, and Finn's is more memorable, for the wrong reasons, than his message. That's why Giraffe is right.
I
Ionizer
Guest
And with society (in general) calling rape a violent and horrible act, why is this even called *rape*?!? ~Deceptive of him? Yes, of course. Typical guy, imho, or so the saying goes. Violent (as per 'rape' connotations - not at all. Not even close. I wonder if that woman said that she that she had never gone down so fast ("I don't normally do this until I know a Jew really well, ya know!" You are super-special to have me do this for you). Every bit as culpable if so. We all know how every woman is a vessel of purity and chasteness at all times - aren't they? (sarcasm here, but I heard it often when I knew otherwise).
At least the guy ain't getting stones thrown at his head 'til death - there's that aspect going for him.
Too bad Frank Zappa is gone as there might be a great song in this re: Catholic Girls (with their tiny little moustache.....) Joe's Garage tune, iirc Not sure why *that* song just became an earworm, but I also hear the Central Scrutinizer wanting to speak, too.
At least the guy ain't getting stones thrown at his head 'til death - there's that aspect going for him.
Too bad Frank Zappa is gone as there might be a great song in this re: Catholic Girls (with their tiny little moustache.....) Joe's Garage tune, iirc Not sure why *that* song just became an earworm, but I also hear the Central Scrutinizer wanting to speak, too.
I
ivan astikov
Guest
I won't. Just make sure you make a list of all the truths he told also, you know, for the sake of a balanced perspective, n that.
I hate to inject some actual content into this train-wreck ...
But in answer to your question: it would appear to be a recent change in the law, set by the 2008 High Court decision. Prior to that there was no such animal as "rape by deception".
In short, based on the exact same facts, in 2007 this fellow would have been charged with "fraud" and in 2010 with "rape by deception".
Thank you for addressing my points. IMO the change in law by the High Court, and the subsequent ruling by Judge Segal, presents a fairly obvious slippery slope.
The first instance seems a bit easier to understand - he coerced his victims into sex by not only misrepresenting himself but also offering something (which he did not have) in exchange for sex. "Sleiman told women he would get them an apartment and increased NII payments if they would sleep with him."
But in the second instance the Judge ruled because he lied about two things, not being Jewish and not wanting a "serious romantic relationship", he was guilty of "rape by deception".
So let's leave out the Jewish angle for a moment - does this mean that any woman can claim rape if the man pretends he wants to be in a relationship but really doesn't? What about guys who lie about their job (as the "doctor" did in the earlier case)? If that's the case, there will be a whole hell of a lot of rapists out there to be arrested.
As I mentioned upthread, I can understand the case for "rape by deception" when there is coercion, but I cannot really grasp where the line is for simply lying. And frankly I think (and hope) this will be overturned on appeal, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. (I also hope for a pony, so there you go...)
I'm pretty sure I don't understand your point. Are you claiming that if a person lies to gain sex, the lie should be overlooked in some cases on the basis of some "higher rule of non discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity and gender"?