DEANYOUNGBLOOD17
Registered User
- May 10, 2011
- 3,623
- 1,736
There is almost no similarity to the Duke case beyond those two very general points.What do you mean?
I don't think anyone is arguing that. The argument is that she stated she was sober on video, so if we take her at her word, her consent is legitimate. My argument is that retroactively retracting it later would be wrong.I can’t believe there are people in here arguing that it’s perfectly normal to get (drunk) women on camera to say that the (gang) sex they just had was definitely consensual.
This simply isn't true.All the evidence points to her giving consent both before and after. What absolutely SHOULDN'T be a thing is the retroactive retraction of consent.
Have you? So how can you claim that I'm wrong?This simply isn't true.
You haven't seen any of the evidence, let alone all of it.
At this point the passed out thing and the video of consent thing are just stories, no one knows what is real.
You took a internet article to be as concrete as courtroom evidence.Have you? So how can you claim that I'm wrong?
So February 5th the London Police are holding a press conference about this. Are they going to just be like "player X , Y , and Z are goofs" or will it just be more of the same ambiguous statements?
That's... not how it works. Do you have a source indicating all of the court evidence indicates if/when she gave consent?Have you? So how can you claim that I'm wrong?
Seriously? Of all the problems in the world, that what he cares about?Don’t forget that Jesus will NOT be your friend if you’re not married
(I look forward to a very hot climate afterlife)
Have you? So how can you claim that I'm wrong?
Don't eat shellfish.Seriously? Of all the problems in the world, that what he cares about?
Best grilled cheese I've ever made: bacon, smoked gouda, Granny Smith apple.
How are you able to say that it was grudgingly? And then explain how these guys are supposed to know the difference.
What if I send it in a different format, like PDF?This article does not directly link the five players to the five as-yet unconfirmed players.
You’re actually making a great point for our policy because you’re proving that people won’t be able to handle the distinction.
You’re even responding to my specific response to this (which is still true in the link you provide here) so I’m not sure what you think is different here.
I’ve read this article two dozen times because people keep sending it to me as “proof” and I’m hoping they added something to the article, but nope. Sane article. Same implied connection but not stated. The article is having you make the conclusion. The article does not present the conclusion.
Stop sending me this same article, folks.
What if I send it in a different format, like PDF?
What could that evidence be? All I can think of is someone who was there acts as a witness against their teammates.
Read this thread, then come back and try saying that again.I really don't see anyone refusing to believe them.
You people are stepping away from the greatness of a grilled cheese sandwich. Two slices of American cheese, one slice of cheddar. White bread or potato bread. Cooked in butter. That’s it. Nothing more.Extra sharp cheddar
Honey ham
Granny smith apple
Real maple syrup
Crusty bread
Now that's a quality grilled cheese
There is no rape charge in Canada, it’s 3 levels of sexual assault.That's likely the very key point. If you bang someone who so incapacitated, they CANNOT consent. Then it IS rape. And if that's what the evidence shows, then a conviction is more than likely. And well deserved, IMO.
Considering some of the bizarre positions people have taken wrt various hockey plays over the years, I absolutely can. If anything, I'm surprised there's not more people arguing it's perfectly normal if not acceptable.I can’t believe there are people in here arguing that it’s perfectly normal to get (drunk) women on camera to say that the (gang) sex they just had was definitely consensual.
The whole thing is a messed up situation and I still don't understand the allure or motivation of the original player inviting other players into the room, let alone what was going on even if the alleged victim did consent to it. Is it possible that she felt pressured to go further than she was comfortable with by a combination of alcohol clouding her judgement and intimidation (whether intended or not) by the players and some of them may not have realized she was uncomfortable with what was happening? I would like to believe that maybe that was the case versus several players knowingly sexually assaulting someone as others also observed it, but who knows. Hopefully the court system in Canada can get to the bottom of it and justice is served.
I feel like the players actually hurt their case by recording her saying she consents. This could easily be a he said she said thing. At the bare minimum the players look weird and deviantI can’t believe there are people in here arguing that it’s perfectly normal to get (drunk) women on camera to say that the (gang) sex they just had was definitely consensual.