Yes, I said if.
You write as though you assume his innocence. I do not.
I am not the legal system.
The words out of his own mouth, during and after the trial show him to be an ignorant brute for whom I have no respect.
I have not said anything similar to "if he weren't a criminal he wouldn't be in jail." I am saying he has demonstrated a level of ignorance, thuggery and brutality that makes giving him any benefit of the doubt beyond that necessary to absorb the words he himself said stupid and/or hypocritical and/or unnecessarily hostile to women and the truth.
> I understand your feelings about this. My point, however,is that --
> raped someone who he says he did not.
The thing is, in the case of rape, you CANNOT PUT STUPIDITY,BRUTALITY AND TACKINESS ASIDE because they have bearing on the expectations one can have of the individual under thecircumstances.
Now, don't get ignant and claim I am dismissing the woman's part in making herself vulnerable to this. She was foolish. But for anyone to put the blame exclusively on her is no less than monstrous, and insulting to any mature man. Such a person sees MEN as weak, too weak to resist animal passions, less than the least woman on the planet.
I do not accept that view of men. Men CAN refuse to be brutal.Men CAN respect the choices of others. And I have no respect for any male that holds otherwise.
> > That's like having a man in jail, falsely convicted of a crime, and
> > having to kill someone who has threatened his life, andthen you turn
> > around and say: "well, if he wouldn't be in jail if he wasn't a
> > criminal anyway ...". It just goes on and on, down the rabbit hole
> > until you get to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
>
> Yes, I said if.
>
> You write as though you assume his innocence. I do not.
I thought that the legal system (at least states that it)requires a presumption of innocence. I could be wrong.
> I am not the legal system.
>
> The words out of his own mouth, during and after the trial show him to be
> an ignorant brute for whom I have no respect.
But ignorant brutes can be falsely charged, Phase. Go and read the history of the Blackman of America in the South (and North,for that matter). There are newspaper articles that almost verbatim describe the alleged Black "rapists" as "ignorant brutes", etc., etc.
> I have not said anything similar to "if he weren't a criminal he wouldn't
> be in jail." I am saying he has demonstrated a level of ignorance,
> thuggery and brutality that makes giving him any benefit of the doubt
> beyond that necessary to absorb the words he himself said stupid and/or
> hypocritical and/or unnecessarily hostile to women and thetruth.
Then your conclusion is purely emotionally-derived, rather than factually-derived.
> You said the other day:
>
> > I understand your feelings about this. My point, however, is that --
> > stupid, brutally tackiness aside -- he would never had occasion to make
> > that statement had he never been sent to jail being convicted for having
> > raped someone who he says he did not.
>
> The thing is, in the case of rape, you CANNOT PUT STUPIDITY, BRUTALITY AND
> TACKINESS ASIDE because they have bearing on the expectations one can have
> of the individual under the circumstances.
It is not a crime, nor an indication of a potential criminal, for one to be stupid, brutal or tacky.
> Now, don't get ignant and claim I am dismissing the woman'spart in making
> herself vulnerable to this. She was foolish. But for anyone to put the
> blame exclusively on her is no less than monstrous, and insulting to any
> mature man. Such a person sees MEN as weak, too weak to resist animal
> passions, less than the least woman on the planet.
Who put the blame exclusively on her? She was not charged with any crime, even though there is evidence of a conspiracy to extort money from Mike Tyson.thing.
Lemme ask you a question, and very seriously -- if I walked around in a maximum security prison shower with pasties on my nipples, and a G-string, and a brunette wig, and I was sexually assaulted, whose fault would you say it was? Be truthful.
> I do not accept that view of men. Men CAN refuse to be brutal. Men CAN
> respect the choices of others. And I have no respect for any male that
> holds otherwise.
Men do things that can range from brutishness to tenderness,depending on the situation. At least I can and do, and, afterall, "ain't I a man?" Men CAN respect the choices of others, and they can ALSO acknowledge the choices of others that put those"others" in situations where the "others" might be compromised.
We are talking about real life here. Not nirvana, Phase.
I've already stated my position. I don't think I was unclear.
If YOU have more to explain, feel free.
I'm through.
Thanks.
I'm not. I changed the way I do this a while back, remember?
If you truly think emotion doesn't come into play in your decisions and judgements as it does with all humans, you are either delusional or brain damaged. If you don't, you are fronting and lying.
Either way it's not ever going to be useful to shift a list conversation with me to private mail. And it can't have been an accident - you've been using email too long, you're too technically knowlegeable for that.
You convict yourself out of your own mouth, just like Mike.
You're a male.
Don't ask me ain't you a man again. You might be surprised by my answer.
> That's like having a man in jail, falsely convicted of a crime, and
> having to kill someone who has threatened his life, and then you turn
> around and say: "well, if he wouldn't be in jail if he wasn't a
> criminal anyway ...". It just goes on and on, down the rabbit hole
> until you get to the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
At no point have you said he did not rape her. So the correct parallel is "That's like having a man in jail who claims he's innocent..." A whole different case than a man who is ACTUALLY innocent. Just as different, in fact as the case of being guilty and being *found* guilty.
This point is empty until you can say you've examined the case and decided he was not guilty.
> > You write as though you assume his innocence. I do not.
>
> I thought that the legal system (at least states that it) requires a
> presumption of innocence. I could be wrong.
That "phase" of the case is over. The presumption of innocence does not extend beyond being found guilty.
> > The words out of his own mouth, during and after the trial show him to be
> > an ignorant brute for whom I have no respect.
>
> But ignorant brutes can be falsely charged, Phase. Go and read the history
> of the Blackman of America in the South (and North, for that matter). There
> are newspaper articles that almost verbatim describe the alleged Black
> "rapists" as "ignorant brutes", etc., etc.
That's not only insulting to me personally, it's insulting to every Black person to equate a convicted rapist's case to our enslaved and oppressed ancestors. You have no respect.
> Then your conclusion is purely emotionally-derived, rather than
> factually-derived.
Your motivation is purely emotionally driven, regardless of your carefully constructed language.
He had the benefit of the doubt from me until I read his statement. HIS statements-yours mean nothing in this case.
I have no reasonable doubt.
> It is not a crime, nor an indication of a potential criminal, for one to be
> stupid, brutal or tacky.
It is, in fact, an indication of potential criminality to be stupid, brutal AND tacky, which he is. I can understand your desire to deny that, though.
> Lemme ask you a question, and very seriously -- if I walked around in a
> maximum security prison shower with pasties on my nipples, and a G-string,
> and a brunette wig, and I was sexually assaulted, whose fault would you say
> it was? Be truthful.
Truthfully, if you are equating Tyson's hotel room to a maximum security prison and Ms. Washington to a prisoner, then she was CLEARLY in a coercive situation and he is guilty of rape. If you are not equating the conditions then this is a pointless aside.
That said, it would be your fault.
> Men do things that can range from brutishness to tenderness, depending on
> the situation. At least I can and do, and, after all, "ain't I a man?"
Well, I assume you got a dick. I'm not making any further judgements based on the statements before me.
> We are talking about real life here. Not nirvana, Phase.
You're talking about your particular view of life. Not real life by any stretch.
