Does this look justifiable to you?

Sorry, I get het up (angry) about certain issues and from what you are saying now, your statement appears to be more reasonable. And my response very unreasonable.

So you agree, to the point I made, you can not tell if rape occured just from physical evidence.

You have pointed to what I was discussing, that it is the marks from what would be termed battery or unlawful restraint that you are talking about. Which was the point I was referencing, that you can not distinguish rape from consensual sex solely on the basis of the physical evidence.

I apologise for my anger, but most of my statements still stand, if not the tone of them.

You have explained yourself and I appreciate that, although my reference to your evasion is in response to Luchog's posts.

I apologise for my apparent and intended rudeness.

There is a real problem when it comes to rape and I mis-interpreted what you wrote. I do appreaciate the problems of cross language translation, I have lived in another country for large amounts of my childhood and appreciate language difficulties.

So I apologise for my rudeness and vehemence. You were not saying what I thought you were saying and ended up agreeing with the point I was making.

As someone who has not supported the Presidency of the US for 5 of the 8 terms since I have been able to vote, I do not hold you to blame for the laws of your nation. It is in fact a glaring problem for most countries and a real sore point here in the US, the legal system fails miserably when it comes to rape and domestic violence.

I regret my actions towards you and apologise.
 
I'd like to think we'd all be able to come together and agree there's absolutely no justification for raping guns. :)
 
Tapio said:
After this I don't know a better word to use than "most likely", when talking about if we can differentiate rape from consensual sex using the physical marks and the psychological state of the victim. Maybe you can help me find an adequate word.
.
Click to expand...

I would avoid the most likely since non-consensual sex often occurs without physical violnce. It is just a sore point for me.

In Illinois the child sexual abuse laws had to be modified from the original, which involved penetrative sexual contact with a minor. (Outside of the Romeo/Julliette scenario) It now has to be phrased as 'activity meant to provide sexual gratification of the perpetrator' and the reasons for this is that, voyeurism, non-penetrative contact, masturbation in the presense of, viewing pornography in the presense of the minor were not illegal under the original defintion. In fact I have had to argue with DCFS (Department of Children and family Services) Hotline workers about this.
Many adult perpetrators are well aquainted with the exact wording of the law and use it to their advantage.

Just as it was not 'child abuse' to choke your child, unless you left bruises on them. (They changed that to 'actions which are at considerable risk of harming the child'.)

And a myriad of other legalistic terms in the law, the legislature is responsive fortunately, but the sad things is that non-consensual sex often does not involve physical violence.

So I should have made that very clear and left the vitriol out.
 
Last edited:
If the police gun use regulations in countries like Finland are as they are being presented in this thread, I must say I am quite disturbed.

New Zealand, in many ways, resembles countries like Finland. We have stringent gun control laws, and self defense is not a justified reason for using a gun. We also have very high rates of gun ownership. And we have, rare in this world, an unarmed police force. Any incident involving an armed police officer is news-worthy. The only difference I can see between Finland and New Zealand is we have far less crime.

And yet, New Zealand police always shoot to kill. They never fire warning shots, and they always aim for the torso.

Worse still, is the attitude behind these Finnish laws. Someone mentioned something about Finnish police not being allowed to approach a dangerous offender in this situation.

Fundamentally, the job of the police is to protect the law abiding innocent civilian population from criminals. As part of this job they are expected to put themselves in harm's way to prevent criminal activity, and to protect civilians.

It seems to me that these Finnish laws are designed to protect criminals from the police. You have to ask why Finland even bothers to have a police force at all, given their attitude.

Perhaps that's why they have such a high crime rate.
 
Drudgewire said:
I'd like to think we'd all be able to come together and agree there's absolutely no justification for raping guns. :)
Click to expand...

Come on! Did you see the finish it had? It was just asking for it. (Insert 'half cocked' and 'slider' jokes here.)
 
Dancing David. Wow.

This is the only forum I've ever seen anybody apologize. I respect your showing me through your last posts, that the true skeptical frame of mind is a wonderful and adaptable one. Apology accepted. I've learned a valuable lesson on giving comments and how to be more careful in the way I put my words. Thanks for it! I will be more spesific and thorough from now on.
 
Tapio said:
Dancing David. Wow.

This is the only forum I've ever seen anybody apologize. I respect your showing me through your last posts, that the true skeptical frame of mind is a wonderful and adaptable one. Apology accepted. I've learned a valuable lesson on giving comments and how to be more careful in the way I put my words. Thanks for it! I will be more spesific and thorough from now on.
Click to expand...

Um, I apologise about every six months, again i was rude and over confrontational. i am sorry.

You deserve a better welcome than you got from me. :(

Welcome to the Forum. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom