Posted on 08/23/2012 11:28:33 AM PDT by managusta
They just can’t help themselves. Today it’s John Pilger in the New Statesman: “The pursuit of Julian Assange is an assault on freedom and a mockery of journalism”. One by one the cream of the intellectual left (and George Galloway) are lining up, in well-disciplined rows, to hurl themselves lemming-like onto the rocks of WikiLeaks. Tony Benn: “the charges are that it was a non-consensual relationship. Well that's very different from rape”. Galloway: "Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape”.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
When did I ever claim that one always dies after having sex without a condom. Were you dozing off in English class, when the concepts of “analogy”, “metaphor”, and “simile” were taught?
If nothing but the literal will do; let me try this: There is a certain level of risk associated with casual sex. In an attempt to mitigate this risk to a mutually acceptable level; some couples chose to use condoms. In the Assange case, the woman alleges that she insisted on using a condom. The woman further alleges that Assange forced her to have sex without a condom. If those allegations are true; Assange committed rape.
The Korean War was authorized by a UN resolution—so much for Congress. As for a formal declaration of war being required, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. IMO, Congress is happy not to use its power (preogative, actually) to declare war; this way, if things go south, the POTUS gets most of the blame. Just another example of how cowardly and degenerate Congress as an institution has become post-1945.
Sheesh is right. By your own admission, you brought Akin's usage into the picture, which is THE OPPOSITE of yours. Get it?
As for your silly attempt to spin out of simply being wrong by claiming that you intended the opposite usage, nice try, but you'll need to sell it to somebody who just fell off the turnip truck. Using illegitimate as a synonym for illegal in the context you've given makes no sense, since there is no such thing as a "legal" rape. It made sense in Akin's context because he wasn't talking about rape per se, but rather, whether a particular claim of rape would be a legitimate exclusion to an abortion restriction.
When did I ever claim that one always dies after having sex without a condom.
You claimed this when you claimed that having sex without a condom is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. Or is survival of this kind of event common in your experience?
Were you dozing off in English class, when the concepts of “analogy”, “metaphor”, and “simile” were taught?
No, but apparently you were. Here is an apt simile: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like lighting a match near a bucket of unknown liquid in the dark. Here is another: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like working with an electric circuit that might be live without insulated tools.
Here is an inapt simile: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like walking into a lethal radiation zone without a lead lined suit. Or, stupider yet: Having sex with a stranger without a condom is like jumping out of a plane without a parachute. No, it isn't like that at all. One involves risk, the other certainty.
Failing to accept a false analogy is not a question of literalism.
Finally, I don't know that (an American) jury would find Assange guilty of rape when his partner consented to a specific sexual act which was performed but not precisely on her terms. I suspect (an American) prosecutor at least would bring an assault or reckless endangerment charge as well, under the assumption that when there's consent, rape becomes rather a murkier question, and reasonable doubt loves the dark.
I don’t fear punishing Assange. I object on principle to any country purporting or attempting to extend its sovereignty to non-citizens outside its borders, and have pointed out the down-side of allowing such attempts.
Your “downsides” seem to be that enemy regimes will unjustly prosecute our people if we justly pursue prosecution of Assange. That is a fear-driven response, rather than a justice-driven response. It is bad precedent, and would encourage further such acts of espionage. We must be driven by justice, not by fear of retribution or the whims of international opinion.
You need not fear whether our enemies will unjustly act against Americans. They will. They are enemies for a reason. Assange is irrelevant to this fact.
Crimes against this country should be prosecuted by this country. He solicited the theft of classified American cables, with the intent of disseminating them to every enemy of this Republic. He did so ... and people died. If justice is to prevail, he must be prosecuted.
SnakeDoc
Oh, really? Time for a well-written, spicy letter to The New York Times, calling out NOW and accusing them of hypocrisy (they've got to be sensitive to that, seeing that Libruls love to accuse conservatives of it), and summoning them to the robust and voluble defense of the poor Swedish women.
Where can a poor working girl find a dykey championette, when she is oppressed by the privileged of Maledom? O hard-pressed soldierettes, bear up! The Valkyries are coming! ... aren't they? lol
Akin DID NOT use the term incorrectly, YOU DID. This is what you are still completely incapable of grasping. He was talking about a legitimate exemption not a legitimate rape.
Does the word DUH mean anything to you?
Again, apparently, you missed the class you're accusing me of missing: you cannot be using the term "ironically" in this context if your usage is "correct" (by your argument) and his is not. That is not irony; it is not even close to being an example of irony. It is merely a snarky "correction." But there was nothing to correct. You were mistaken, and he was not. You are simply wrong. Man up and accept it.
Too clever by half? No, too stupid by whole. Please just suck it up and accept that you didn't understand what he was trying to say and botched your "clever" allusion.
Since you insist on being completely literal -- a "certainty" doesn't allow for any exceptions.
No, you insist that I'm being literal; I'm not. Seriously? You're digging up one case in the entire history of the planet where a person fell out of an airplane and didn't die as an excuse to justify a false analogy on your part? Really? Wow. You are really determined to be a moron.
Your analogy sucks. Accept it. Embrace it. Your subsequent posts are just demonstrating that you're a person with a huge ego who can't accept being wrong even when you've been hit upside the head with it.
Did you sleep through the class on the literary use of "hyperbole" too?
Right there, by the way, is an example of thoroughly gormless irony! Study it, so you can learn exactly what hyperbole is and what irony is. Because claiming that falling out of an airplane sans parachute once in the entire history of aviation without dying doesn't make it a certainty is actually a GREAT example of hyperbole. And your failing to grasp that, is, in one word ironic.
Re: Rape, and and the distance between what constitutes the definition of the act and the circumstances on which a jury decides: Your ignorance of the American legal system, and why prosecutors seek to indict on multiple counts for the same crime is astounding.
As for keeping my zipper up, since I've been married to the same woman for 30 years -- and she has never died during unprotected sex, which you have announced is only a matter of degree less risky than jumping out of an airplane in an inane attempt to justify what is probably the lamest excuse for an analogy that I've ever heard -- I think I'll keep my own counsel about what to do and when.
In fact, let's make a bet: I'll lay billion-to-1 odds in your favor. I'll have unprotected intercourse with my wife this evening, and you go book an airplane, and jump out of it from, say 8,000 feet. If you survive and my wife dies, I'll pay you $1 billion.
Turnip truck? Do they even have trucks where you live?
PS. Your increasingly feeble attempts to justify a post that was silly enough in the first place are hilarious. PLEASE don't stop!
He said it was the wrong word -- as in a poor choice of words -- not that he should have said "illegitimate" instead. And indeed he was talking about exemptions. Please go to youtube or some other place where people with your attention span and lack of reading comprehension can go and listen to the interview. He was asked about exemptions to a blanket prohibition against abortion, specifically, "what about an exception for rape?"
You see, for those of us who actually understand subtlety -- to say nothing of plain English -- the subtext in his statement (and what he clearly is insinuating) is that if you allow an exception for rape, there will be attempts to claim an exemption based on sexual intercourse that was not, in fact, rape at all. But for a rape which is a "legitimate rape" -- that is, what the FBI calls forcible rape -- the cases where that legitimate exception would be permitted are rare (in his opinion) because of (what he believes is) a lowered conception rate resulting from trauma.
Pro tip on the English language to USAFRIENDINVICTORIA: using a politically incorrect word and regretting it is not the same thing as using a word with a diametrically opposite meaning. This is what you did. It is not what Akin did. You may both regret your choice of words, but his was merely impolitic. Yours was erroneous. Case closed.
Are you capable of understanding the risk difference between (presumably) monogamous married sex, and casual sex with multiple partners?
"(Presumably, [snark snark]) monogamous." Sorry, you must be thinking of your own wife.
But the real question is, are you actually capable?
"According to a report by researchers Norman Hearst and Stephen Hulley in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the odds of a heterosexual becoming infected with AIDS after one episode of penile-vaginal intercourse with someone in a non-high-risk group without a condom are one in 5 million."
Whereas, the odds of jumping out of a plane without a parachute and dying are about 5 million to one (or more.) That's a minimum of twelve orders of magnitude difference in the risk factor for two supposedly "analogous" behaviors, which are only differentially riskier "as a matter of degree." So much for your "apt" simile.
I suppose then, that you have no interest in this bet. Pity. I would love to take $1 from your heirs and assigns.
Please keep posting. By the way, do you speak Chinese? You'll be there soon.
I used the term “illegitimate” correctly, in the context of my original remarks. You could argue that the word was redundant, in that it's a given that rape is illegal. You'd be right about that — and I was perfectly aware of the superficial redundancy, but I thought it would be “clever” to slip in a little ironic remark. In retrospect, that was a mistake — it's been a huge distraction.
It's also clear that you will *never* get the point. The woman alleging rape refused sex without a condom — the most likely reason being because, in her opinion, the risk was too great. It doesn't matter whether the odds of death were 1:1, or 1:10,000,000 — it was her choice.
Akin is a selfish moron & Assange is hiding out in an embassy to avoid a trial for rape. If you want to keep defending them, that's on you. I'm done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.