I'm off home in a minute... no doubt when I return nehalem will have dug up an old quote of some random student feminist that he will cling to as justification for every disparaging remark he makes about feminists and feminism in these threads.
The topic of that other story is Clinton's abject insensitivity in regard to a 12 year-old rape victim while in her role as the accused's defense attorney. Here, we have progressives who have roundly criticized Will for his insensivity to rape victims for saying progressives "make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges". You may not perceive anything in common...however, I do...so it appears that we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.The topic of that other story seems to be Clinton's attempt to dispute rape charges made by someone while acting as the accused's defense attorney, while George Will's column is about how women covet the status of rape victims. They appear to have virtually nothing in common.
The topic of that other story is Clinton's insensitivity in regard to the rape victim while in her role as the accused's defense attorney. And progressives roundly criticized Will for his insensivity to rape victims. You may not perceive anything in common...however, I do...so it appears that we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
The topic of that other story is Clinton's abject insensitivity in regard to the rape victim while in her role as the accused's defense attorney. Here we have progressives who have roundly criticized Will for his insensivity to rape victims. You may not perceive anything in common...however, I do...so it appears that we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
I think you're really really reaching. It would in fact have been unethical for Hillary to have put sensitivity towards the victim before her client's interests.
I think you're really really reaching. It would in fact have been unethical for Hillary to have put sensitivity towards the victim before her client's interests.
EDIT: Imagine what nehalem would have said if Hillary had abandoned her client in the interests of protecting a female victim. He would be foaming at the mouth right now.
Disgusting. The "boys will be boys" attitude taken to the nth degree. Blame and shame the victim while slapping the perpetrators on the wrist. BJU - the "Rapist Apologists" university.
Will George Will receive an honorary degree from BJU?
I agree. However, the case is long closed. It is a poor showing of character for Hillary to brag about how great of a lawyer she was, because she took advantage of lost evidence, disparaged alleged victims, and had clients that could manipulate a lie detector. Instead, she should be solemnly reminding the U.S. that defense attorneys aren't just defending an individual, they are defending the constitutional rights of everyone who might be accused of a crime in the future.
Compare the difference between a person who is proud of their ability to get great results for defendants they suspect are guilty, and a person who is proud of their role in protecting the integrity of the judicial system, even if they didn't always like the result of individual cases. The latter sounds like someone who would be a good political representative. The former sounds like Hillary Clinton.
And how, exactly, do you know this is an "invented" problem? Your opinion is that the woman cited in Will's column is full of it; whether you're right or wrong you're at least basing your conclusions on that situation as described. But you then wildly extrapolate and conclude that the woman in Will's column is representative of many or most cases of sexual assault on campus? Yeah, that's totally rational.Why would I have a solution to an invented problem? Even you started talking about punishing "sexual misbehavior" not sexual assault.
Where's your evidence that most claimed sexual assaults are bogus?The "solution" would be for feminists to stop imagining sexual "assaults" where none exist.
If the drunk man is the aggressor and the woman is incapable of giving consent, then they man should be charged with a crime, just as a drunk driver should be charged with a crime, but not his drunk passenger. If the situation is reversed and the woman is the aggressor, with the man unable to give consent, then the woman should be charged.If a drunk man and drunk woman have sex it isn't rape.
If a woman clearly says "no" and the man proceeds to take off the woman's clothes and have sex with her anyway, the man has committed a crime.If a man nags a woman for sex it isn't rape.
etc.
And how, exactly, do you know this is an "invented" problem? Your opinion is that the woman cited in Will's column is full of it; whether you're right or wrong you're at least basing your conclusions on that situation as described. But you then wildly extrapolate and conclude that the woman in Will's column is representative of many or most cases of sexual assault on campus? Yeah, that's totally rational.
And if by "talking about" sexual misbehavior you're implying that I'm somehow advocating punishment in these cases, you're again wildly jumping to conclusions. Nowhere have I voiced an opinion one way or the other about a "solution" to "less-than-sexual-assault" cases on campus. I merely described what is being done on some college campuses.
Where's your evidence that most claimed sexual assaults are bogus?
If the drunk man is the aggressor and the woman is incapable of giving consent, then they man should be charged with a crime, just as a drunk driver should be charged with a crime, but not his drunk passenger. If the situation is reversed and the woman is the aggressor, with the man unable to give consent, then the woman should be charged.
Being high on drugs or alcohol doesn't give you a pass for criminal acts.
If a woman clearly says "no" and the man proceeds to take off the woman's clothes and have sex with her anyway, the man has committed a crime.
Imagine that you enter a grocery store, pick up a cantaloupe, and tell the store manager "I'm going to take this cantaloupe without paying for it." The store manager says "no." You pick up up the cantaloupe anyway and walk out the door without paying for the cantaloupe, and the manager says nothing. Do you think that you haven't committed a crime?
There are two people in that snippet, one of whom is a dean and the other is a lawyer; there is no mention of any feminists.
I also don't see any mention of anyone claiming that when two adults have sex whilst under the influence of alcohol it is rape.
Perhaps its time for you to study up your ethics. You might start by looking at the definition, especially the part about morals. I'd like to think that some people still posses them.
are you blind?
The topic is indeed rape and insensitivity to it...no?
What do you think should be done with Hillary?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...on-took-me-through-hell-rape-victim-says.html
“As an attorney and an officer of the court, she had an ethical and legal obligation to defend him to the fullest extent of the law. To act otherwise would have constituted a breach of her professional responsibilities.”
In the exercise of his professional judgment on those decisions which are for his determination in the handling of a legal matter, a lawyer should always act in a manner consistent with the best interests of his client. However, when an action in the best interest of his client seems to him to be unjust, he may ask his client for permission to forgo such action.
I'm not talking about during the trial as she was clearly obligated to defend her client. I'm talking about how she boasted after the trial about how she manipulated our justice system at the expense of a 12 year-old knowing full well that her client was guilty. Tell me again about George Will's "insensitivity" out of one side of your mouth while you defend this scumbag out the other side. I hope she gets the nomination as I personally would love to see the attack ads on this particular issue.The article makes the counter-argument clear:
And here's what the American Bar Association Code of Conduct has to say:
So are you advocating that attorneys do less then their best to defend their clients if they think their clients are guilty? Should divorce lawyers do less then their best to get every possible advantage for their clients, even though they know that their clients are assholes and cheats?
Because if that's what you're advocating, then lawyers have a duty to tell their clients before even beginning to represent them "If I find out that you're guilty or otherwise a jerk, I won't do my best to represent you."
Also, it's interesting that you compare what a lawyer did, which was a requirement of her profession, with what a columnist wrote completely free of such constraints.
Insensitivity? Thirty years ago, reminiscing about a complex case that she thought she'd done a great job of defending, talking about the odd characters (the judge, the forensics expert, the incompetent police team who cut out the crotch of the underpants and returned the "evidence" with nothing but a big hole in it)? This is the best you can do? And you think this behavior is comparable to Will's who is basically telling the world that sexual assault on campus is a phoney issue?The topic of that other story is Clinton's abject insensitivity in regard to a 12 year-old rape victim while in her role as the accused's defense attorney. Here, we have progressives who have roundly criticized Will for his insensivity to rape victims for saying progressives "make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges". You may not perceive anything in common...however, I do...so it appears that we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.
There are many difference as well. Which of the two do you view as more heinous?
Just stopping by to note that Sue Wasiolek (of Duke fame) is a member of the Bar and advised the lacrosse players not to retain lawyers.
Many of the same posters here had no problem condemning the duke lacrosse team with zero real evidence. To many here for rape it is guilty until proven innocent.
Uhh, what? I didn't read the article yet, but I already see that your quote does not say what you think it says. Look up "micro aggressions" and you'll see that it has nothing to do with rape. It's crap like not holding the door for someone of a race or religion that you don't like.Yes, one of the big GOP conservatives did say that.
Link
They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (micro-aggressions, often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate.
Once again, why does the GOP hate woman? Can't imagine why all the woman are now pissed off at him.
Some helpful advice for the misogynists posting in this thread:
http://inspire52.com/rape-psa-couch/
Watch and learn
Sadly, the ones who really need to hear it's message will simply gloss over it with a "that guy must be gay" or "if that were my couch I would sooo tag that bitch" attitude.