Dennis Hastert indicted.

[Meadmaker]

This whole exchange is kind of funny. It's a great example of the fallacy of equivocation.

it's very clear that arcade22 is using "rape" to mean "forced sexual activity", and others are using "rape" to mean "sexual activity which is illegal because one part did not, or cannot legally, consent."

Each side understands the other perfectly, and each side knows that neither side is actually incorrect, but it will be interesting to see how long this can go on.

For what it's worth, my guess is that what Denny Hastert did does not satisfy any legal definition of rape, including statutory rape. The reason I say that is that most criminal codes have been revised over the years and the word "rape" has been totally removed from the legal definitions. In the law, it is usually called some variation of "criminal sexual conduct" or "sexual assault". Therefore, sticking precisely to the law, there is nothing called "rape" in a lot of jurisdictions. I don't know if Yorkville, Illinois is one such jurisdiction, either today or at the time of the crimes.

What we can say with certainty is that he is accused of criminal conduct, which would include consensual sex, and that whatever he did, he thought it was worth paying millions of dollars to someone to not let it be known what happened.

 

[fuelair]

So there is indicting and likely indickting involved here - Hastert is definitely ^ the creek........

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

These two statements, in succession, are pretty funny.

So if there is a law against something there must not be any other reason to agree with it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes you and benburch are accusing him in this thread right now despite refusing the give any evidence to back up the allegations.

Where exactly did she accuse him of raping her brother? I've read the articles posted in this thread and the article only said:

No actual accusation of rape or even sexual abuse only that the "relationship caused irreparable harm". For all i know her perception of said relationship is highly inaccurate. Considering that the victim is dead and barring any written testimony they left i don't exactly trust her recollection.

So you can't actually defend your beliefs at all and refuse to justify them. Nice.

Well i guess Sweden isn't included among western countries then...

This is incredibly contorted thinking. What do you think his first sexual encounter was with Hastert meant?

Sister accuses Hastert of a four year relationship with her brother all through high school when Hastert was a coach at the school. Sister says brother told her, his first sex was with Hastert. And what, that's not a direct enough statement for you?

The charge in this thread was, "Hastert has been accused of rape." What do you think the sister was accusing Hastert of?

Chicago Tribune

Federal agents also have interviewed a second person who raised similar allegations of sexual abuse against Hastert that corroborated the account of the initial alleged victim, another law enforcement source said after the indictment. The Reinboldt accusation raised the possibility of a third alleged victim.

Reinboldt's sister Jolene Burdge told ABC News that when her brother came out to her as gay, years after his graduation, he told her that he had a yearslong sexual relationship with Hastert during high school.

Is your argument the sister didn't spell out penetration? I really don't get your nit pick here.

 

[Aepervius]

And if a law says something that makes it so? A teacher having consensual sex with their student is actually completely impossible because the law doesn't acknowledge said consent?

Beside the fact it is a crime (*), the main problem, as said upthread, is that you cannot differentiate whether the teacher is using his position of power or not. So just like age of consent law, where an arbitrary barrier was put at a certain age deemed old enough for the person to decide for herself, an arbitrary barrier was set up to bar persons in potential power over the teenager to have sex with them.

(*) statuatory rape, so any mention of him having sex with an underage person as rape is based on legal statue and correct

 

[BenBurch]

Right. Laws determine not only what is and isn't legal they also determine reality itself. Then we come back to the point i made earlier:

...

Rape exists only as a law. If you are the sort to want to **** a child, you have put yourself subject to that law. Enjoy!

 

[Arcade22]

This is incredibly contorted thinking.

Go ahead and explain what part is "contorted". I beg you.

What do you think his first sexual encounter was with Hastert meant?

Sister accuses Hastert of a four year relationship with her brother all through high school when Hastert was a coach at the school. Sister says brother told her, his first sex was with Hastert. And what, that's not a direct enough statement for you?

Oh they had sex and that means he raped him because...? Oh right i forgot that, to Americans, it was actually completely and absolutely impossible for anyone under the age of 18 to consent to sex. Even the notion of having consensual sex with someone under the age of 18 is contradictory.

Is your argument the sister didn't spell out penetration? I really don't get your nit pick here.

Of course don't get it because you have already concluded that it must have been rape because a law says any and all sex with someone is rape no matter what.

 

[Arcade22]

Rape exists only as a law.

I think that statement says more than enough.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Go ahead and explain what part is "contorted". I beg you.

Oh they had sex and that means he raped him because...? Oh right i forgot that, to Americans, it was actually completely and absolutely impossible for anyone under the age of 18 to consent to sex. Even the notion of having consensual sex with someone under the age of 18 is contradictory.

Of course don't get it because you have already concluded that it must have been rape because a law says any and all sex with someone is rape no matter what.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The Boxer, Paul Simon

You want a debate over what constitutes rape when, the sex appears consensual but because a minor is involved it is defined as non-consensual, and no one is taking your bait.

You want a debate whether an adult having sex with a minor, especially in a situation such as a teacher and a minor student, constitutes non-consensual sex by its very nature, and no one is taking that bait either.

You continue to insist the legality of something is the only supporting argument for what is consensual sex when a minor is involved despite being told by many people here they are using their own definitions of the ability to give consent, not the legal definition of rape in and of itself.

And by the way, do you even know the law in Sweden?

I assume Wiki has this right, they quote the law:

The age of consent in Sweden is 15, as specified by the Swedish Penal Code, Chapter 6 (On Sexual Crimes). The age of fifteen is referred to several times, for example in Section 4, which reads: "A person who has sexual intercourse with a child under fifteen years of age or who with such a child carries out another sexual act that, having regard to the nature of the violation and the circumstances in general, is comparable to sexual intercourse, shall be sentenced for rape of a child to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years."

 

[hgc]

So if there is a law against something there must not be any other reason to agree with it?

I don't know what you're talking about. I just thought it was funny that you said the law wasn't the only thing you were going by, and in the next line you describe some kinds of situations as definitely constituting statutory rape. You see, "statutory" means enacted in statute by a legislative body, as in defined in the law. By definition, you are precisely concerned with what the law says. Now, maybe you meant to say something other than statutory rape, say, wrongful sexual contact regardless of the law or something like that. I don't know.

And I notice that you use the rolly eyes smiley in response to all my posts. Is it something I said?

 

[Arcade22]

You want a debate over what constitutes rape when, the sex appears consensual but because a minor is involved it is defined as non-consensual, and no one is taking your bait.

You want a debate whether an adult having sex with a minor, especially in a situation such as a teacher and a minor student, constitutes non-consensual sex by its very nature, and no one is taking that bait either.

No i don't. What i want is for you to start supporting your statements with facts like i have been asking you to do. Your continual refusal to do so is getting really tiresome.

You continue to insist the legality of something is the only supporting argument for what is consensual sex when a minor is involved despite being told by many people here they are using their own definitions of the ability to give consent, not the legal definition of rape in and of itself.

Where have they explained that? Care to cite their posts cause i haven't seen anyone explain their own special private definitions of what "rape" really is? I haven't seen you do that either.

BenBurch even explained that rape doesn't exist other than as a legal construct. I guess one can presume that his definition of rape coincides with all the different legal definitions of rape that the world has to offer, no matter how inconsistent and contradictory they happen to be.

And by the way, do you even know the law in Sweden?

Yes? First of all, that is just a "Brottsrubricering", the title of a crime, and it could be titled "XYZ/512" and it would make no difference.

Second, there's another paragraph that wasn't included that goes like this:

"If an offense referred to in § 4 first or second sub-paragraph is, with respect to the circumstances of the crime, to be regarded as less serious they shall be sentenced for sexual exploitation of a child to imprisonment not exceeding four years." Thus there's not necessarily any insinuation of rape.

And lastly is that in actual legal practice with cases of what you call "statuary rape" the judges often acknowledge in their judgments that the sex that took place was mutually consensual and there's no reason to suspect that the underage individual was unable to consent considering the circumstances. Even if the judges come to those conclusions there's nothing at all that prevents them from sentencing people for "rape of a child" instead of "sexual exploitation of a child" because consent isn't a requisite for sentencing them for that criminal label.

Even the legislators who wrote that law conceded that it would be unfair and unreasonable to sentence people to a minimum of two years in prison (effectively 16 months in prison, usually) if the intercourse was mutually consensual, non-abusive and especially if it was in terms of love. Hence why they included the less serious variation of the same crime.

To reiterate: the crime is to intentionally or negligently have intercourse with someone who is under the age of 15 and despite going under the label of "rape of a child" there's no requirement for rape to have taken place nor are the judges obligated to ignore anything that suggests that the victim consented.

 

[Minoosh]

Hastert has been accused of rape.

It's a simple claim backed by the discussion of his alleged crime as reported by the sister of one of the victims.

Yes per latest news stories I agree, but that came out pretty recently. Except for "innocent until proven guilty" thing. That does IMO matter but I don't doubt that it's being reported fairly.

 

[Arcade22]

Beside the fact it is a crime (*), the main problem, as said upthread, is that you cannot differentiate whether the teacher is using his position of power or not.

That's strange considering that Swedish prosecutors have successfully prosecuted teachers for the crime of "sexual exploitation of a dependent person" despite them needing to show that the accused used their position of authority to make the victim engage in or endure a sexual act.

So if it's possible in Sweden why wouldn't it be feasible in America?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know what you're talking about. I just thought it was funny that you said the law wasn't the only thing you were going by, and in the next line you describe some kinds of situations as definitely constituting statutory rape. You see, "statutory" means enacted in statute by a legislative body, as in defined in the law. By definition, you are precisely concerned with what the law says. Now, maybe you meant to say something other than statutory rape, say, wrongful sexual contact regardless of the law or something like that. I don't know.

And I notice that you use the rolly eyes smiley in response to all my posts. Is it something I said?

Sorry. Your post followed the same line as Arcade22 who assumed when I said, against the law, that it was the sole reason I believed Hastert has been legitimately accused of rape (not saying there's proof, the question was, where has he been accused of rape?).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've answered you repeatedly, Arcade22. You just keep ignoring the answer that doesn't fit your tunnel vision of what the exchange is here. I can't make it any simpler for you.

You asked, where has Hastert been accused of rape?

It's been answered numerous times: he's been accused by the sister of the victim and one other witness whose ID is obscured on the video.

The rest of your quibble is claiming that wasn't a rape accusation and most people in this thread disagree with you.

 

[BenBurch]

I am really appalled that anybody is defending this rapist.

 

[Meadmaker]

BenBurch even explained that rape doesn't exist other than as a legal construct.

And I pointed out that it doesn't exist even there in most of America.



But I must share others' puzzlement about your point. At first, I thought that your point was that Hastert's actions may have involved consensual sex, as opposed to the ordinary definition of rape. I'm not exactly sure why that's significant, but I can see some people thinking it is.

So that may be true, but even so, what's the bigger point? I mean, other than picking nits, what's the big deal about the distinction between consensual illegal sex and nonconsensual illegal sex? It still means Hastert is in a heap of trouble, and it still means that most people would hear about what he did and still consider him to be pond scum, quite apart from whatever it is the law has to say about his actions.

So, other than arguing semantics, is it really all that important whether Mr. Hastert is accused of rape, or merely of criminal sexual conduct?

 

[Trakar]

And I pointed out that it doesn't exist even there in most of America.



But I must share others' puzzlement about your point. At first, I thought that your point was that Hastert's actions may have involved consensual sex, as opposed to the ordinary definition of rape. I'm not exactly sure why that's significant, but I can see some people thinking it is.

So that may be true, but even so, what's the bigger point? I mean, other than picking nits, what's the big deal about the distinction between consensual illegal sex and nonconsensual illegal sex? It still means Hastert is in a heap of trouble, and it still means that most people would hear about what he did and still consider him to be pond scum, quite apart from whatever it is the law has to say about his actions.

So, other than arguing semantics, is it really all that important whether Mr. Hastert is accused of rape, or merely of criminal sexual conduct?

I'm under the impression that consent can only be properly given between individuals that are considered equal and equivalent under the law. This is the reason that individuals under eighteen cannot enter into binding contracts regardless of how much they really want to.

 

[BenBurch]

Rape is what we legally define as rape. What Hastert did was rape. Hastert is a rapist and a pedophile.

A deeply closeted queer who legislated against those just like him.

And also a patron of DC rent boys.

Nothing wrong with being queer or screwing rent boys, unless of course you are being a hypocrite.

 

[sunmaster14]

Rape is what we legally define as rape. What Hastert did was rape. Hastert is a rapist and a pedophile.

A deeply closeted queer who legislated against those just like him.

And also a patron of DC rent boys.

Nothing wrong with being queer or screwing rent boys, unless of course you are being a hypocrite.

A pedophile too? Where did you hear that?