twistedmic said:
theultimateend said:
Personally if I wanted to ruin someone's credibility I'd run their name through the mud.
That way you get the common man on your side lambasting them all over the internet.
Cheaper and much more effective than turning him into a martyr.
Terrorist sympathizer would have been too on the nose.
I'll give you that. But there are easier ways of ruining a man's reputation/image/name than falsify charges. Planting child porn on his computer or physically in his home or plant enough drugs (cocaine or heroin) to make it look like he's a drug-runner would make him look a lot worse than falsifying rape charges (not that I'm saying the charges are false, I don't know enough details to make an informed decision).
The child porn seems like a good route but the thing is this man became famous from others leaving dangerous evidence on their PCs for others to pilfer. It seems unlikely he'd not be paranoid about his own traffic history.
Now, lying about wearing a condom? That's something anyone can at least comprehend being done. I was in college not too long ago and I can think of dozens of guys who would have done something that stupid.
Plus its called Rape (which to me undermines actual forced sex, but whatever people like buzz words) which immediately puts him in the shitter. There is no such thing as a rapist with a conscious, they are vicious animals.
BAM he's done. Few folks will ever research it beyond the news story breaking because its one of three or so acts that are utterly unforgiveable in the US.
Anywho it only pisses me off because I have actually had to council someone after they were physically forced into sex (raped). Hearing it for when people fib bothers me. By that logic it seems like if you had sex with someone because they believed you were rich but you weren't that you raped them.
It is too broad a stroke, this is a serious crime that ruins folks emotionally for a long time (if not forever). That's mostly where my bitterness comes in and my skepticism of the average reader's judgment skills come into question.
The timing of the report resurfacing were at the peak of Wikileaks popularity.
Similarly the guy did quite a few televised interviews and while he came across as awkward I don't recall him ever acting like a prick. But what do I know, he obviously runs around raping people so he must be a monster who is avoiding justice.
itsthesheppy said:
If I have sex with you under false pretenses, or while you're too inebriated to object, or flat-out unconscious, or if you rescind consent halfway through and I don't stop, that's all rape. It's not just when someone wearing a ski mask jumps out of the bushes. It is a crime that covers many possible instances and all of them are terrible.
If sex under false pretenses is how you classify rape you just named easily millions (if not more) people as rapists. I'd be willing to argue that nearly everyone who has ever lived who has had sex has had sex under false pretenses at least once.
Throwing the common understand of rape into "lying for sex" is incredibly disingenuous and insulting to any victim of rape. Being lied to and being physically assaulted are astronomically different events that cannot be comparable in basically any way I can fathom in my mind.
Guh...just the idea that you'd put them on the same tier is mind blowing to me.
