i'm glad i'm not a whore

well, the law will contribute to the larger social problems of viewing any sort of sex as dirty and immoral (and especially so for women); with the ideas of "women as needing protection because they are women" instead of the more general "women needing protection because they are people and this is a crime"; things like that.
 
in a reference to earlier in this thread, i'm pretty sure the President of Nigeria is a super-Christian who makes Islamic laws.

and yeah, i was talking in terms of a democratic society and specifically THIS MODERN democratic society, but Toby's example did illustrate the general principle of laws guiding cultural changes, which occurs across most or all political systems.
 
hey Toby, Constantine also undertook a rigorous program of church building, including the church over the holy sepulchre in Jerusalem, and another of the most famous landmarks in the world, the haga sophia in Istanbul.
HagaSop1.jpg

it has since been turned into a mosque by the moslems.

it is an awesome place. My mom took me and my brother to Turkey and that's where my brother grossed me out at a lunch by flicking the entree's (fish cooked whole) eyeballs at me.

brothers, what can ya do with them.
 
Well, the moment has passed, but heres something else to consider, referring to what you people have been talking about two pages ago... I don't know the WHOLE story, so I'm sorry if this is totally wrong, but awhile back on the news, I saw that she had another guys cum on her underwear like she fucked some other guy a mere half day after she got raped? and if thats anything to consider, that happened AFTER the accused rape. Not saying a person's sexual history should be completely disclosed, but perhaps certain evidence should be looked at?
 
Yeah, that's what I read too. It's a good point which I feel is important... though I'm interested to see what the_preppy has to say about it.

Also, they're talking about this On Point tonight (with Tom Ashbrook)

<3
 
i mean, finding out about evidence they've collected is fine. but they're digging into her sexual past through her friends who had no knowledge of the alleged rape/events leading up to it. they are asking about her entire sexual history, quotes as 'x-rated stuff' that she's done in the wayyyy past too. which i think is funny considering sex isn't a crime, one, and two, like i said before... most past crimes aren't even allowed as evidence. never mind things that aren't crimes (and used as some implication therein). even more, say for example someone committed a crime in one state and then in another and are being charged with both. SOMETIMES the one in one state isn't allowed as evidence to implicate the OTHER similar crime in another state... during the proceedings because it's considered 'speculative' because there was no finding...

it's one thing to ask them 'would she lie about sex/rape?' but another to be like 'does she like people to cum on her face?'.
i can see why they'd question her motives for sexual behavior after the act... but people after rape react in many ways anyway. sure question that, by why dig so far?
 
i also want to add, in case it's not apparent, that everyone has really valid points and i am not even necessarily DISAGREEING so much about the general facts of this particular case but as the type of person i am, i am looking at this from a very legal 'how does this affect it all' standpoint, as far as rape victims and/or precedent. and the way that works is very different than what is necessarily 'right or wrong' at first glance.
if that makes sense.
 
well, you can't concretely pinpoint when a culture decided that something like gay or interracial marriages were okay. it's a huge, long grey area pinpointed by thousands of events, like "sidney poitier portrayed engaged to a white woman in successful movie" and stuff.

but the way social change tends to happen is this:

a sufficient number of educated, active, or important people come to understand that a certain thing is wrong or right that wasn't considered wrong or right (or, not to such a degree) before.

those people lobby lawmakers for change. they also prevail upon the generally static and non-progressive populace to accept the new way.

soon, pressure from the activists combines with falling political pressure from the lawmakers' constituents if they (the lawmakers) accept the new way. new laws are passed. (crucially: without the pressure from the activists, MUCH more societal acceptance would be necessary. one enlightened activist counts for one hundred or one thousand enlightened people)

the laws are on the books, and the large majority of the populace goes about slowly converting to accept the "new" way.

well if we're talking about issues of race, this is about 99% inaccurate. you can point to brown vs. board or sweatt vs. painter all you want, but there was 10 years of near warfare following their passing in order to procure any kind of civil rights parity, let alone social parity. following that, there was another decade of urban violence --utter warfare, activism by "enlightened" and UNenlightened people who simply were fed up with their situation. how did "educated" lawmakers respond? paternalistically--they tried to figure out what was the source of the problem. they pinned it on the failure of the black family when the right answer was staring them in the face: unbridled, constant racism and discrimination. so, no law was passed and people just gradually 'fell in line.' African-Americans had to literally seize that power for themselves.

maybe social change "tends" to happen more like how you described with some other example...though i doubt it.
 
tar, doesn't that go along exactly with what i said?

mindless: sounds like a sports thug/predator type. how exactly does sexual battery differ from rape in your state? like violently busy hands or something?
 
xfer said:
tar, doesn't that go along exactly with what i said?

no. in fact, it's the exact OPPOSITE of what you said. you said, some activists (not people) make a stink and then educated people make a law and then gradually everyone (apparently calmly) acquiesces. what HAPPENED was a whole bunch of people (not "activists") made a stink just by trying to live their lives with some dignity, a law was made (or in this case, reversed) and NOTHING CHANGED. then those regular people had to go change minds with mass action. then the "educated lawmakers" passed the civil rights act. those laws did nothing again, and the result was the urban uprisings in the late 60s. if "gradual" top-down, acceptance takes 30+ years and involves three major moments of social upheaval orchestrated by those who are supposed to be getting 'accepted,' then i suppose that goes along 'exactly' with what you said.
 
no, i characterized the law as being one of the major factors hauling society towards (or away from) progressivism. i didn't say people quietly acquiesced. the success of the "urban uprisings" was only possible because of the shift in attitudes that was being effected by the painfully wrenching law.
 
xfer said:
no, i characterized the law as being one of the major factors hauling society towards (or away from) progressivism. i didn't say people quietly acquiesced. the success of the "urban uprisings" was only possible because of the shift in attitudes that was being effected by the painfully wrenching law.
\

sorry dude, that's not how things happen(ed). social change does not stem from legal action. uprisings especially aren't "made possible" by "wrenching" legal changes. they are made perhaps BECAUSE or DESPITE of them, eg because they are supposed to correct attitudes and behaviors but they don't, despite the changes that were supposed to be happening but weren't. but i want to make it clear that they do not fuel situations such as Detroit 67 (just picking an example at random). those events spring up as a direct response to repression, not some idealistic (which is what you are suggesting, btw, by saying "change in attitudes") flow for "what's right" directed by supposedly "enlightened activists"
 
so you seem to be saying that we should make the most anti-progressive, painfully repressive laws possible because social change will only be effected in popular opposition to those.

NO FAG MARREDGES NO FAG MARREDGES!!!!
 
xfer said:
so you seem to be saying that we should make the most anti-progressive, painfully repressive laws possible because social change will only be effected in popular opposition to those.

NO FAG MARREDGES NO FAG MARREDGES!!!!
if that is honestly what you got out of what I wrote, then i guess that is what i must be saying!
 
greg had to finally open this thread because he was like 'wait i thought amanda was a complete and total whore???? what the....?'