Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 262

Are you really trying to pretend that penetrating someone while they're asleep is perfectly acceptable?

Maybe you don't sleep with many women, but the fact she is naked in your bed makes the acceptability a little more convincing.

Maybe in your hometown of Steubenville, but everywhere else, no, just because a naked woman passed out in your bed doesn't make it "acceptable". I'm seriously wondering how many women you've raped now.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 262

she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse,

How is it rape is she consented?

What part of "He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes" do you not understand? Are you really trying to pretend that penetrating someone while they're asleep is perfectly acceptable? How many rapes have you committed that you're trying to now excuse?

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 262

Raping someone while they're asleep and unable to resist tends to be frowned upon in civil society.

Sure, but what does that have to do with this case?

That is this case. From the UK High Court Opinion:

[Assange's lawyer] Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 262

Where does all this anti-Assange fluster come from? How could you know any more about it then anyone else that follows the media?

I've read the UK High Court opinion, which goes into significant detail about the events, including the ones that Assange confessed to having done. Specifically, from the opinion:

[Assange's lawyer] Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

His own statements have done him in.

it is equally obvious that these "rape" claims are dubious.

Again, from the high court:

Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof...
In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

Just to emphasize that - "there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged."

You have not debunked anything. If you could actually produce decent references to a few ground facts that would be most helpful.

Done. Here's the link for you, too.

The lobster dinner is obviously absolutely relevant.

Absolutely not, unless he was farking her during the salad course. The only question is whether he had consent at the time he penetrated her. Not when he had lobster. This is the same reason why any "regret" she had later is also irrelevant, as I'm sure you'd insist.

In these consent rape cases the question is whether the woman actually gave consent or not, i.e. who is telling the truth.

In typical ones, yes. But fortunately, here, we have Assange confessing to penetrating a woman, while she was asleep, knowing that she had told him no to sex. There is absolutely no question about facts or who is telling the truth, because everyone, from the victim to Assange to his lawyer to the prosecutor agrees on what happened: she said no sex without a condom; she went to sleep; he penetrated her while she was asleep, without a condom, knowing that she wouldn't consent and that she couldn't resist. That's rape.

A woman that thinks she was violated, raped, does not normally then have a pleasant dinner with her attacker.

Your turn: [citation needed], please. Many, many studies have debunked your claim. In particular, in the vast majority of rape cases in which the victim knows the rapist (including sometimes friends, family members, trusted advisors, etc.), the reactions are all over the place.

But more importantly, this is all irrelevant. Assange confessed to raping her. Whether she acts appropriately in your eyes the next day is irrelevant, because it doesn't magically travel back in time and wake her up before he stuck his dick where he shouldn't have. Got it? She was asleep. He did not have consent and knew it. He did it anyway, and has admitted it. The end. She could bake him a farking cake the next day and it wouldn't change what he did at the time.

As far as I can determine this is entirely driven by the prosecutor, and not the women who would rather forget about it.

Yeah, it's almost like thousands of rape-apologists and blind Assange-supporters have attacked their reputations to the point that they would rather forget about the whole ordeal, since it can't undo the crime that was committed against them.
Of course, what you're really arguing for is that criminal liability or lack thereof should be based on how unpleasant we can make it for the witnesses to cooperate with prosecutors. Threaten to rip out their fingernails if the testify, and I bet magically, rape convictions would go away! Of course, only a rape apologist would then argue with a straight face that rape itself had diminished.

As to the loaded word "rape", that implies a certain amount of violence.

Only to you, apparently. To the rest of the world, sticking your dick in a sleeping woman when she's previously told you not to touch her is rape, not romance.

And who remains asleep while someone is fucking them anyway -- there is no claim that she was very drunk.

She woke up when he entered her. Are you seriously trying to argue that it's not rape if he doesn't orgasm?

Comment Re:What did he expect? (Score 1) 262

No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE. There's a big difference.

No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE. There's a big difference.

No, he's facing a final round of questioning prior to being CHARGED for RAPE, which occurs right before being TRIED for RAPE. Sweden's legal system has been discussed here often enough.

That "Sweden's legal system has been discussed here" does not somehow turn into, "there is no investigative process in Sweden and 100% of people questioned are tried." That is just absurd.

Oh, and specifically, in support of my post above, the following is from the UK High Court opinion:

Plainly this is a case which has moved from suspicion to accusation supported by proof...
In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced.

Investigation is complete. They're ready to charge. In Sweden, the very last stage before charging is interrogation, which is what he's wanted for. It gives him an opportunity to confess - essentially, pleading guilty.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 2) 262

Also add the STD issue (which was Assange being an arse hole that got him into this mess!) and the lobster dinner after.

While the post you're supporting has been debunked already, I'd also like to point out something here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you would take issue with the concept of a woman "having regrets" after sex and deciding, a day later, that what was consensual sex was actually rape.
"That's outrageous," I'm sure you'd say. "How can her regrets - or anything else the next day - travel back in time to somehow make consent disappear?!"
And you'd be entirely correct. Consensual sex or non-consensual sex is determined at the time sex occurs, and not based on what happens the next day.

... but then you bring up a lobster dinner. As if that lobster dinner somehow travels back in time to make lack of consent disappear.

What happens later is irrelevant. In this case, the woman told Assange no to sex. She then went to sleep. She woke up with him inside her. He admitted to all of that during his appeal to the UK High Court. Anything that happened later - lobster dinners, demands for HIV tests, etc. - do not change the fact that, knowing he did not have consent and taking advantage of an opportunity when she could not resist, he penetrated an unconscious victim.

Comment Re:What did he expect? (Score 1) 262

No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE. There's a big difference.

No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE. There's a big difference.

No, he's facing a final round of questioning prior to being CHARGED for RAPE, which occurs right before being TRIED for RAPE. Sweden's legal system has been discussed here often enough.

That "Sweden's legal system has been discussed here" does not somehow turn into, "there is no investigative process in Sweden and 100% of people questioned are tried." That is just absurd.

No, rather, it's like the investigative process here. The police don't rely on interviews with suspects, because - and this may be a shock to you - suspects always claim they're innocent. So, unless his story is amazingly credible, then interviewing him is merely a formality.

But here's the thing - Assange has already admitted to everything he's accused of during his appeal to the UK court:

Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

That right there is everything they need to proceed with charges, even if the "interview" consists of them saying "did you do it" and Assange smirking and staying silent.
So, yeah, as I said, he's facing the final round of questioning prior to being charged and tried. Calling it merely questioning disingenuously attempts to hide the fact that he's already confessed.

Comment Re:What did he expect? (Score 1) 262

No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE. There's a big difference.

No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE. There's a big difference.

No, he's facing a final round of questioning prior to being CHARGED for RAPE, which occurs right before being TRIED for RAPE. Sweden's legal system has been discussed here often enough.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 262

If you were the father or brother of those two girls your opinion on the matter would probably be different.

If you read the details of the charges, your opinion would probably be different...

Not likely. Raping someone while they're asleep and unable to resist tends to be frowned upon in civil society.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 4, Informative) 262

They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual

That's a gross misstatement of the facts. In one case, the woman was asleep at the time sex started. She had previously told Assange no to sex, and then went to sleep. She woke up with him inside her.

... which is rape in Swedish law.

Penetrating someone who is unconscious is rape in most countries.

Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.

That's also grossly misleading - in Swedish law, the charging comes at the very last stage, prior to trial, which has to commence within one week of the charging. The fact that he hasn't been charged yet is simply because he's hiding out.

Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation.

Not at all. Assange admitted during his extradition appeal to the UK High Court that he had sex with the sleeping woman, knowing that he didn't have consent. There's no "he said, she said," because everyone agrees on the facts - he penetrated her, knowing that she was unable to give consent and unable to resist. As the court said, "it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half-sleep."

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 5, Informative) 259

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

18, not 17. It's in the article:

But at its core, the case was about an intimate encounter last year between a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old acquaintance, and whether she consented as it escalated.

And he was convicted because his story wasn't credible. He (now) claims he suddenly saw the light, seconds before penetrating her. And yet, for days afterwards she was texting him to ask whether he used a condom, and she went to a pharmacist for emergency contraception. Are those the actions of someone who wasn't penetrated? Add to that the fact that he repeatedly changed his story, and it's very easy to see why a jury didn't believe him.

And yet, despite all that, they didn't convict of rape. So you're right on that count, Anon. So why all your crying and attacking the victim?

Comment Re:The Sad Puppies won. (Score 1) 1037

The Sad Puppies won. Yes, they didn't win a single award -- in fact, some really good works lost to No Award, seemingly just to spite them.

But that was the point.

Their stated goal was to prove that there was a group of people out there voting for political reasons and fixing the Hugos... They proved the Sad Puppies point -- that the Hugos are fixed by a group of gatekeepers.

Did they? Or did they prove that the Hugos could be fixed by a group of gatekeepers?
Specifically, we can certainly both agree with the latter - the SPs acted as a group of gatekeepers to fix the nomination slate, proving it was possible. But the fact that they did so easily and completely implies that there was no opposing force. If there already was a group of SJW gatekeepers blocking unapproved nominations, then we would have heard about a nomination battle, no? Each side of gatekeepers would rally supporters trying to control the slate, and this would become more and more public as their forces grow. Most likely, the resulting slate would have some extremist SP nominations and some extremist SJW nominations, no?

Instead, without even a breath of resistance, the SPs controlled the slate. That shows it was possible, but also shows no one was trying to do it before them. The SPs actually proved that there wasn't a group of people fixing the Hugos until they came along.

Comment Re:Fines should be like banks (Score 3, Interesting) 144

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.

If corporations are people, it should work the other way as well. Therefore, if someone downloads a movie they would have otherwise paid $14 to see in a theater, the fine should be about 2 bucks.

That makes perfect sense. And by the same logic, if someone uploads or shares a movie that a distributor would have paid between $10-20 million for the rights to distribute, the fine should be about $50-150k.

It's important to remember that people aren't being sued for downloading, they're being sued for uploading. And distribution rights are expensive. Apple doesn't pay Warner Brothers $1, once, in exchange for being able to distribute some new song. AMC Theaters doesn't give New Line Cinemas a simple $14 for the rights to show Straight Outta Compton on a thousand screens for the next three months.

Remember back when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to the Beatles' catalog for several million? It worked out to around $20-30k per song... which happens to be right about the same amount Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum had to pay for their infringement.

Comment Re:...against a common enemy (Score 2) 147

Incidentally, peeking makes split-screen better for co-op than the alternative of buying two consoles and two copies of the game.

Better? For competitive split screen certainly not. For cooperative games it's tolerable...

Incidentally, reading the comment you're replying to makes Slashdot better for discussions.

Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 226

But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer).

I think people tend to look at what has happened in the last 50 years rather than what happened over 200 years ago.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...