RO: Palestinian jailed for being Palestinian

[Gyrate]

That's the pdf link about rape by fraud that I linked to and quoted from. It was specifically focused on that concept. Warning: it is a bit long.

Yeah, it crashed my machine when I tried to load it. Le sigh.

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

If ypu mean they have never been interpreted so as to charge an Israeli Arab with lying about being a Jew for sleeping with an Israeli Jew, you are probably right ...

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

 

[FinnAgain]

Mate, I haven't even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.

There's that honorable nature, and honesty, too!
You objected to me, correctly, noting that the OP was lying when they claimed that a "Palestinian was jailed for being Palestinian." Rather than object to such blatant dishonesty, which you wouldn't do because you're just one of our anti-Israel brigade, you spazzed out and tried to take me to task for, go figure, being right about the OP lying.

Because you're a partisan shill and you believe that we're not supposed to call out anti-Israel lying (due to how honorable and honest you are).

Bonus points for your new line of dishonesty, and I do hope it become standard in the We Hate Israel brigade on the Dope. First of all, of course, you're dishonestly claiming that the fact of the OP lying is a mere "accusation", like maybe the guy really was jailed for being a Palestinian. And now if you lie about something, it's just "hyperbole". Funny, of course, that all your "hyperbole" ends up being anti-Israel. What're the odds?

Surely you're not just a partisan looking to support your anti-Israel bias. Nope. We all know that you'd enthusiastically support someone who said "Israel's security measures are justified because each and every single Palestinian man, woman and child is a terrorist bomber." Because, I mean, that's just hyperbole. And if you get caught in an anti-Israel lie then, why, just claim it's "hyperbole". It can't fail.
Of course (being that you're so honest and honorable) I'm sure you've wondered why it is that your anti-Israel brigade has to resort to wild hyperbole quite so often to make your claims, but (again, due to how honest and honorable you are) you're much more concerned with the fact that someone noticed that the OP was lying than that the OP was lying.

 

[Mince]

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.

Yeah, well, you bust a deal, you face the wheel.

 

[Guinastasia]

Is it, in fact, "rape by deception" under the laws in question to deceive someone into having sex with you? Why yes, yes it is. That does indeed mean that in this case it's "rape by deception".

And said law is, in my view, utterly ridiculous, if not outright unjust. (I can see cases where you have identical twins switching identities, etc).

So you think the identical twin switch thing doesn't require consequences. Its funny so its okay?

Uh, that's exactly what I was trying to say -- that a twin switching WOULD constitute rape by deception. DUH. In other words, I can see where this law WOULD work in certain cases. (Such as the case of a twin pretending to be his brother and fucking said brother's wife) But in the case listed in the OP? NO.

GAH!!!

 

[kidchameleon]

I'm thinking how would a Westboro Baptist get into Guin's pants .

Offer her $5 for them at a garage sale like anyone else.

 

[Maeglin]

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?

How the hell should I know? The question turned on the phrase "violent rape" that keeps cropping up in the reportage. I presume that the Haaretz article accurately reports his charges, neither of which were "violent rape". Indecent assault may in fact require violence, but I don't know enough to say one way or another. That's all.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And, of course, if a Muslim woman were to ever go in and claim that a Jew lied to her to get her in the sack, the police would point to the "hah hah, we hate Muslims" part of the statute and indicate that they would, therefore, not investigate the matter further.
And then they'd rape her.

We know this, because Israelis are all vile racist sneaky lying nogoodniks.
And part of what makes them so horrible, we know, is that they all think something like that about Palestinians (we know). What nerve!

No one said anything about "all Israelis" and your histrionic charges of bigotry are neither true nor an effective defense of this prosecution.

Israel certainly is unduly influenced by bullying, bigoted racist ultra-orthodox factions, though, and this judge is an example. This is not how this law was supposed to be applied and you need to take the beam out of your own fucking eye before you look for the splinters in others.

 

[Honesty]

So, for instance, Honesty, the reason it can be called fraud to lie to somebody in order to get sex is that, loosely speaking, fraud only means lying to somebody to get something out of them. So why wouldn't it be? The law doesn't say "but not if it's something obvious like 'I've got a huge wang'" or otherwise require that it be particularly egregious. Ordinarily, that kind of discretion is exercised by some combination of the victim, the police, the DA, and the courts. If all of them feel like taking it seriously, there's nothing preventing a perfectly by the book conviction for it, which shocks people because it doesn't match their expectations, only their expectations are naturally based on the practical enforcement of the law, and not the letter. It's the same with rape -- "but that's OBVIOUSLY not rape!" The thing is, rape has a definition, and the things that fit it do fit it.

I don't mean to say that the question "why would this be prosecuted" isn't a good one; just that the question "how is this (crime X)" is generally pretty easy to answer.

Your reasoning is very logical and I agree with it to a point; however, this particular law attempts to a force a behavior deviates from the reality of male-female interactions. I don't have a crystal ball but I suspect that the majority of men have lied or exaggerated to get in bed with a woman and don't see it especially deserving of prosecution. Your mileage may vary. Would be amusing to see women file lawsuits en masse against men who lied in order to sleep with them.

 

[Villa]

So when you wrote "I'm glad that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine." you actually realise that what you really meant was "I don't know if that satisfies your definition of consensual sex. It sure as hell doesn't satisfy mine."

You see, because all I had to go on is "Such as, for example, the Nebraska (?) headmaster who told female students he would ensure they did not graduate unless he screwed them". *That* I do not see as rape. Add in things like trying to forcibly get his penis inside of them, then it is a different matter.

Don't get arsey if you don't provide all the evidence.

That was the Pennsylvania case by the way - and on rereading it was Montana not Nebraska. My bad.

The thing is, though, under Pennsylvania law, that he had to force into her did not make it rape. That she didn't tell him to stop because she was terrified of being sent back to juvie meant it could not result in a rape conviction. If she was terrified because he held a gun to her head, then the conviction would have been upheld. That's the traditional legal view of rape by the way - that both force and absence of consent are required.

My apologies for getting arsey with you.

 

[newcomer]

It has to do with the idea that if a woman chooses to have sex with a guy who tells her he's part of her faith/ethnicity and interested in a serious relationship, when really neither is true, that she's been tricked into sex.

A serious relationship?! This is beyond repair.

In those 10 minutes poor guy probably did not say one thing that has any basis in reality. I wonder what judge would say if the woman

 

[Damuri Ajashi]

Nobel Peace Prize, only President to make and advance towards peace in the middle east. Shit like that.

Noble peace prize is a freaking joke. Obama may have been making plans to do something, but he certainly has done nothing yet. I'd rather not turn this into a hijak, but neither he nor Carter deserve the prize any more than you or I do.

I am a big Obama fan but I think everyone in the world was :dubious: about awarding him the nobel prize.

Carter on the other hand HAD done stuff. "In 2002, President Carter received the Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development" through The Carter Center."

Was there anyone else in the world that you could argue had done more... probably but Carter's wasn't a joke.

I'd link a list of all the balant lies Carter wrote, but I know you'll just ignore my link, so what's the point?

I have no doubt there are inaccuracies but when you call them lies, you add a patina that assumes intent on the part of the writer.

I'm not answering for Finn, but IMO the thread title is a sort of Yellow Journalism, which is a type of dishonesty.

Not telling both sides of the story might also be considered a type of dishonesty. Intentionally stating facts that are undercut by other facts without pointing out those other facts might be considered dishonesty.

Oh, and BTW? He was arrested for lying about being Jewish and for lying about being unmarried. So I thing we should change the title to "Married Man Arrested for Lying About His Marital Status in Order to Seduce a Woman". But that would cause much less outrage, huh?

I think the suspicion is that if had been Jewish and married, he would not have been arrested for a philandering one night stand while if he had been Palestinian and single he would have been.

No, he uses that term because it's the correct term to use in this situation.

If the term bigot is to be interpreted so broadly then why couldn't we use the exact same term for Finn Again's attitudes about Israel and the Palestinians?

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.

Well then it wouldn't look as bad and we can't have that.

 

[FinnAgain]

So in the first sentence, I would say you are accusing "people" of antisemitism.
In the second sentence, I would say that you accuse Ionizer of anti-semitism.

And you'd be wrong. Neither is an accusation of anti-semitism.
An anti-Semite is someone who hates Jews and/or believes negative things about them as a group.

Red Fury, for instance, is an anti-Semite because he believes that all Jews in politics are potential traitors and believes that naming everybody in the US government who he remembers whose name sounds Jewish to him is a good way of catching those sneaky traitor Jews who are such a problem. Ivan is an anti-Semite because he believes that Jews are money grubbing people with a superiority complex who use the Mossad as their representative organization to commit every type of crime on Earth.

Pointing out that people, especially and your fellow travelers, are fine with anti-Israel shit and won't say anything about anti-Israel since it's the right target, but you would if it was anti-Palestinian, let alone any 'wrong' minority group like blacks or gays does not say you're anti-Semites.

You seem to have also confused ionizer with pretty vacant. It was the latter who stated that, because of me, it was understandable that some people would confirm bigotry against Israel and/or people who don't oppose Israel. That, too, is not an accusation of anti-Semitism.

And while I'm at it, I've called out Sam Stone, for instance, over his errors when he's taken a pro-Israel position on a few occasions. How many of the anti-Israel brigade here have ever done the same for people arguing an anti-Israel position?

what are you doing when you imply that some things seem to be acceptable as long as the targets are the "right people"?

Honestly what would the reaction be if we changed your admission of anti-Israel bigotry to one of kneejerk anti-gay (or black, or whoever) bigotry? Do you really, honestly and truly believe that it would be acceptable if someone said that they have a kneejerk anti-black reaction and automatically sort any new information into an anti-black narrative that they really have to work on so it doesn't dominate their thinking? How would that play on the Dope, do you think?
Do you think that 'in context' it would be totally cool if they said they have that automatic anti-black narrative due to Farrakhan or whoever? Or would people say that's no excuse at all?

Answer honestly. If you said the same exact thing you said about Israel, but instead said it about blacks (or about Palestine, and said it was understandable that you did due to Arafat's behavior), what would the reaction have been?

But of course it's acceptable when the target isn't blacks, but Israel.
Why is that?
Can you answer that without the "Ah-hah! So you're accusing everybody of hating Jews, aren't you?"

I remember having to correct people maybe 3 or 4 times after which people stopped bringing it up.

No, they kept bringing it up. And even if they didn't, what does that tell you that people will automatically make certain accusations without bothering to check the facts first? It wasn't exactly hard. The search terms? "International law maritime blockade, -israel".

The first hit is the Sam Remo Manual.

Why is it that almost everyone (including the Israel apologists) will admit that there is at least some problems with Israel but you cannot seem to bring yourself to admit even that much.

See, this is part of the problem here. You use a fictional charge of 'claims or hints of anti-semitism', then act somewhat reasonable for a paragraph or two, and then you're back to this kind of dishonesty. The fact that it's a common falsehood doesn't make it any better, either. In the very thread you were just discussing, I mentioned many times that I thought that the blockade was needlessly harsh and caused undue suffering among the people of Gaza.

And that's just one example, but it doesn't fit into your fiction.
Your behavior is, however, S.O.P. among your fellow travelers. There was one thread where I stated, clearly and explicitly, that I believed that if Israel didn't halt all settlement expansion immediately that the US should turn off the spigot and case all aid. Just a few posts later, Red Fury was back trolling me and claiming that I never criticize Israel and support everything they do. And, predictably, the anti-Israel posters in the thread didn't call him to task.

It's the same old, same old.

 

[Pedro]

Mate, I haven't even joined in the Israel part of the discussion.

Just pointing out that for the umpteenth time you joined the discussion throwing around accusations of lying. At least get a fucking thesaurus and add some synonyms to the mix. And possibly a dictionary so you can look up "hyperbole".

To be fair he throws in a few "dishonests" once in a while for good measure.

This is how I picture a typical FinnAgain monologue:
- Damn, I'm so liar!
- Sorry, I mean hungry.
- But this hamburger is absolutely bigot!
- What the hell?! I meant delicious, of dishonesty.
- Of course! Of course. Fuck, why do I keep making these liars?

Ad infinitum.

 

[Guinastasia]

T

Even if this particular woman is as racist as a barrel of KKK members, it is her right to choose not to sleep with someone - because she doesn't like his skin colour or his ancestry or whatever.

Nobody said it wasn't. It still doesn't make it rape in this case.


FinnAgain, you have some serious issues. Tell me, how bruised IS your foot nowadays, what with all that knee jerking?

 

[Really Not All That Bright]

I just assume he and Alesan are paid employees of the Israeli State, such blindness is too irrational otherwise.

Alessan is actually quite reasonable. I mean he is actually Israeli, so it shouldn't be surprising that he's a bit partisan.

 

[DSeid]

... the judge's reasoning is clear and ugly.

It is ugly to apply a law as it is written?

It has been established that:

- the law was not designed with any discriminatory intent,

- it has not been applied in a discriminatory manner, its other applications were applied to lies committed by Jews,

- that this particular woman has claimed, and is believed when she claims it, that she would not have desired to have sex with this particular man if she did not believe that he was of her faith/ethnicity.

Whether or not the law is stupid is immaterial: it is not racist or apartheid. Whether or not this particular woman has anti-Arab prejudices is immaterial: she consented to sex on the basis of a fraudulent representation. The judge's reasoning is clear and not at all ugly: her job is not to make the law but to rule on it as it written, whether the lie is about working for the government, about being of a profession other than what you are, or about being of a different faith than what you are.

Laudenum, your untruthful statement was stating that he was "jailed for being Palestinian"; that is untrue - he was jailed for fraudulently representing himself to get sex according to the same law that has jailed Jewish Israelis on the same charge.

Dio makes a bold charge:

It has not been used against Jews for lying about what race they are to get a Palestinian chick in the sack, nor would it ever be.

It should be easy for him to find cases where a Palestinian Israeli woman accused a Jewish Israeli of that and the man was not charged. Otherwise he should stop making shit up. Of course he could really do that and still be Dio so nevermind.

And by the way, neither Jewish or Palestinian are "races". And both have plenty of individuals who would decline to have casual sex with someone of the other group. And some I am sure who would find that a turn on. And they each have their right to behave accordingly.

 

[FinnAgain]

Nobody said it wasn't. It still doesn't make it rape in this case.
?

Is it, in fact, "rape by deception" under the laws in question to deceive someone into having sex with you? Why yes, yes it is. That does indeed mean that in this case it's "rape by deception".

Dio may want to wallow in his standard pig headed idiocy while spouting off with his hate filled anti-Israel bigotry, but at the end of the day (and the start too), Dio's claims that Israelis are all bad and nobody would prosecute the case if the roles were reversed and Israel is a Jim Crow society (proven by the fact that, well, he really hates them and he uses his hate to prove how bad they are in the hypothetical that he imagined, of course) is just him spewing his hatred and trying to find ways to justify it after the fact.

No one said anything about "all Israelis"

Not only a bigot, but a coward to boot. How surprising! Most racists and bigots are so very honest about the source of their pathological hatred.
Of course, you simply showed that you're a bigot and you're crazed by hatred and you keep claiming that Israeli is a Jim Crow society and that nobody in Israel would bring charges if it was a Muslim woman making the charges, but it's not like you're saying anything about Israel or how much you're bigoted agains tit.

This does not involve deception about race, but about religious authority.

Any deception qualifies under the law. Only in your fevered hate-washed mind does it become about "ayieee, Muslims!" The law has been used, several times before, due to deception used to induce someone to have sexual relations. That statute is not about race. At all.
No, not even if you're really, really full of hate for those who have a certain national identity.

NONE of this shit should be illegal, but this doesn't even involve the kind coercive manipulation that law was designed to prosecute

Ah, now you've studied Israeli jurisprudence and you can tell us the history of the law and the precedents and... oh, wait, no, you're just a idiot. Ah well.

and saying he "lied about his identity" because he gave a fake name to a bar hook up is disingenuous on your part, and you know damn good and well there would be no prosecution if the races were reversed.

Dio, just because people aren't bigots, like you, doesn't mean that not buying into your rancid hatred is "disingenuous". Just because you're a bigot who hates Israelis doesn't mean that we know, based on nothing other than your bigotry, that the Israeli police wouldn't investigate and the Israeli judiciary wouldn't file charges if the fraud wasn't about tricking someone into having sex by pretending to be Jewish. I know, you're full to the brim with hatre, but for a moment try to ask yourself how you'd build your "case" about how horrible Israelis are if you had to rely on facts and not the simple matter of you being bigoted against Israel.


.

 

[FinnAgain]

This is how I picture a typical FinnAgain monologue:

Ah, a man of integrity.
When people lie and are called and it, and other evince bigotry, don't call them on lying or bigotry, get upset with the guy who notices and points it out.
Obviously, the fact that many people on this board are bigoted against Israel and/or lie to support that narrative reflects very poorly on me.
You're so smart.

 

[Captain Amazing]

His lawyer's name is Aladdin? I don't think I've ever seen that name IRL before.

It's a perfectly cromulent name. There's an Egyptian author named Muhammed Aladdin.