Liberalism at work in Illinois
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 06:31:26 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Liberalism at work in Illinois
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Liberalism at work in Illinois  (Read 2222 times)
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 01, 2005, 05:48:35 PM »

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-molest01.html

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

When do you start loading up your firearms?  This is nothing but tyranny of the State.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2005, 05:56:18 PM »

Sheesh, she was 14!  That should certainly be legal.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2005, 06:12:38 PM »

Sheesh, she was 14!  That should certainly be legal.


What?
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2005, 06:25:31 PM »


I would prefer no age of consent, but if there must be one it should certainly be below 14.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2005, 07:35:48 PM »

More mindless bullsh**t from Richius. What does this have to do with liberalism? NOTHING. Are you now going to make a post blaming liberals if your car doesn't start in the morning? Quite blaming the other ideology for everything wrong in the world, even bandit and jfern don't do that.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2005, 08:08:19 PM »

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

Harsh treatment of real criminals, including the registration of sex offenders, is really a conservative initiative that I support.

But then there is the feminist notion that if a man says hello to a woman, he has somehow violated her.  It is also a feminist notion that every man is at the very least a potential sex offender, and in many cases an actual one.  Feminists have significantly lowered the bar on what could be considered threatening behavior by a man toward a woman, and this case is related to that.

I would say that anybody today should have the sense not to attempt to grab a child under those circumstances, but if he was acquitted of attempted kidnapping, which he probably should not have been charged with in the first place, then he should not have to register as a sex offender.  I would assume that conviction would be required in order to brand somebody a sex offender.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2005, 09:39:37 PM »

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

no, it's stupidity. It's entirely possible to hold an ideology without taking it to stupidity, so let's blame stupid things on stupidity rather than ideology.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2005, 09:49:34 PM »

Grabbing her and giving her a stern lecture about safety.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2005, 09:58:24 PM »

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

no, it's stupidity. It's entirely possible to hold an ideology without taking it to stupidity, so let's blame stupid things on stupidity rather than ideology.

So if liberals advocate something that is stupid, the liberal philosophy shouldn't be blamed, even if it's part and parcel of the liberal philosophy?  That makes no sense to me.  You certainly wouldn't say the same thing about conservatives and conservative policies.  It seems that every time you get backed into a corner on a particularly stupid aspect of what the liberal base is pushing, you try to declare their ideology irrelevant.  No dice.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2005, 10:35:40 PM »

This is an interesting one, because it is actually a cross between a brand of common sense conservatism and hare-brained, politically correct liberalism.

no, it's stupidity. It's entirely possible to hold an ideology without taking it to stupidity, so let's blame stupid things on stupidity rather than ideology.

So if liberals advocate something that is stupid, the liberal philosophy shouldn't be blamed, even if it's part and parcel of the liberal philosophy?  That makes no sense to me.  You certainly wouldn't say the same thing about conservatives and conservative policies.  It seems that every time you get backed into a corner on a particularly stupid aspect of what the liberal base is pushing, you try to declare their ideology irrelevant.  No dice.

Except I haven't seen any evidence that it's liberals pushing for this. And until any liberal defends it on this thread I'll consider it irrelevant. You also must realize that even if one group of liberals supports something, another most certainly does not, true with conservatives as well.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2005, 10:39:57 PM »


Except I haven't seen any evidence that it's liberals pushing for this. And until any liberal defends it on this thread I'll consider it irrelevant. You also must realize that even if one group of liberals supports something, another most certainly does not, true with conservatives as well.

You're not connecting the dots.  Liberal feminists push the hysterical notions that everybody walking around with a penis and a pair of testicles is a major threat to every woman and girl.  It is that mentality that leads to the circumstance described by Richius, in which this man who apparently meant no harm is being forced to register as a sex offender despite the fact that he has been convicted of no crime.

I don't say that every liberal believes this, but radical feminism, and the various permutations of it, of which this is one, is a phenomenon of the left, not the right.

As I said at the beginning, this case represents a perversion, through a bastardization of radical feminist thinking, of an idea that was essentially a conservative one.  It is one of those cases where the two political axes intersect in a very destructive way.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2005, 10:48:22 PM »

You have even admitted therefore that conservatism is just as much to blame therefore this post is asinine. One could make the same thing and just say "conservatism at work".

Whatever the case, I think radical feminism is a load of idiocy, and I have never met anyone who supports it.

Aside from that, Richius is using a logical fallacy he uses in just about every other thread, basically saying that if an ideology gets something wrong, it's therefore wrong about everything. This is the third "Liberalism at work" threads he made. I'll ignore the first one because it had absolutely nothing to do with politics at all, it was about a bad plea bargain. The second one was about unsupervised prison furloughs. I don't support such furloughs so I say I am not to blame for it in any way. However I'm sure even if you found a liberal who did, it would not be a high priority for them, and almost certain almost every liberal would be willing to sacrifice unsupervised prison furloughs for say, a more progressive tax rate.

In this case even if we assume that the whole radical feminism nonsense plays a large part and ignore the equally idiotic conservatism taken to the extreme, it still deals with only a small part of a sub-ideology which makes up a small portion of liberals. Most radical feminists care much more about abortion on demand.

Richius's constant use of logical fallacies is why people call him a troll. nomorelies once posted an article about the Bush administration weakening environmental regulations and basically started screaming that conservatives supported pollution. Everyone called him a troll and an idiot for it. They were correct. However what he did is no different than what Richius is doing now.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2005, 10:53:45 PM »



Whatever the case, I think radical feminism is a load of idiocy, and I have never met anyone who supports it.


Radical feminism has had a huge influence for a philosophy that nobody claims to support.

Are you aware of a new law in Illinois that says that a woman may withdraw consent for sex in the middle of a sex act, even if she gave consent at earlier stages.

This effectively means that a man can be charged with rape if he doesn't pull out fast enough if a woman changes her mind about sleeping with him.

Aside from the idiocy of this, and the impossibility of ever determining the truth in these situations, this opens up the possibility of all sorts of false allegations of rape.  As a guy who's looking to screw around a lot, this is something that should concern you.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2005, 10:56:28 PM »

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2005, 11:22:17 PM »

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

In theory I agree with you, but I think that practically speaking, there's a point of no return when it comes to sex, and that there's a point beyond which the law cannot go.

You're right that this law is not supported only by radical feminists, but that's my whole point -- that it's an example of how radical feminists have influenced those outside their ranks to pass laws that are a major threat to men.

It's ironic that the feminist movement, which started out saying that women should have the same sexual freedom as men, now considers it an onerous burden for women to have sex with men, and that some of the laws and focus of feminism will end up killing the sexual revolution and making the sexual mores of the 1950s look liberal, since men will be terrified to have sex with a woman other than their wife.  This is the direction we are moving in.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,791


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2005, 11:25:22 PM »

More mindless bullsh**t from Richius. What does this have to do with liberalism? NOTHING. Are you now going to make a post blaming liberals if your car doesn't start in the morning? Quite blaming the other ideology for everything wrong in the world, even bandit and jfern don't do that.

I could imagine other situations too, with Richius

"I can't believe I got a spare tire, damn liberals"
"I spilled my milk all over the kitchen table, damn liberals"
"I hit my head on the wall when I wasn't looking, damn liberals"
"I can't believe I got an F on that test, my teacher's a damn liberal"
"Ran out of toilet paper, damn liberals"
"My coffee's too hot, damn liberals"
"My coffee's too cold, damn liberals"
"I tripped over a rock, damn liberals"
"My boombox isn't working, damn liberals"
"I have a headache from all the noise after attending that pro-life rally, damn liberals"
"My pizza's burnt, damn liberals"
"My car's a P.O.S., damn limosine liberals"

and this list goes on.

Seriously, Richius, you're better than this, you have the better ideas regarding economics than almost everyone here.  These "Liberalism at work in _______"  posts aren't helping your credibility, so why do it?  Why piss off a group that's the majority in this forum?
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2005, 10:44:48 AM »

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

In theory I agree with you, but I think that practically speaking, there's a point of no return when it comes to sex, and that there's a point beyond which the law cannot go.

You're right that this law is not supported only by radical feminists, but that's my whole point -- that it's an example of how radical feminists have influenced those outside their ranks to pass laws that are a major threat to men.

It's ironic that the feminist movement, which started out saying that women should have the same sexual freedom as men, now considers it an onerous burden for women to have sex with men, and that some of the laws and focus of feminism will end up killing the sexual revolution and making the sexual mores of the 1950s look liberal, since men will be terrified to have sex with a woman other than their wife.  This is the direction we are moving in.

What type of point of no return? And for how much longer can the guy go? He just should be able to stay there and keep going against her will? If she's screaming for the guy to stop, I think any decent guy would stop.

You're being quite paranoid and ridiciulous. Radical feminism is almost dead in fact, it just so happens to have a few old ones stuck around that keep making a lot of noise and getting lots of attention. Most of the latest generation of feminists are sex-positive or third wave. I'd be much more scared of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, since they are much more connected to the GOP, than any radical feminist is to the Democrats.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2005, 11:03:13 AM »
« Edited: July 02, 2005, 11:16:34 AM by dazzleman »

Well there's nothing wrong with the basic idea behind the law.

Let's say a girl agrees to go home with me, so I drive her back to my place. Along the way she changes my mind and asks me to drop her off. If I don't drop her off and force her to come to my place, most would consider that kidnapping, even though I had her consent at first.

So if the girl says stop, should the guy be allowed to continue to drill her as long he wants to?

Despite the potential for abuse, you can hardly say the idea behind that is solely supported by radical feminists.

In theory I agree with you, but I think that practically speaking, there's a point of no return when it comes to sex, and that there's a point beyond which the law cannot go.

You're right that this law is not supported only by radical feminists, but that's my whole point -- that it's an example of how radical feminists have influenced those outside their ranks to pass laws that are a major threat to men.

It's ironic that the feminist movement, which started out saying that women should have the same sexual freedom as men, now considers it an onerous burden for women to have sex with men, and that some of the laws and focus of feminism will end up killing the sexual revolution and making the sexual mores of the 1950s look liberal, since men will be terrified to have sex with a woman other than their wife.  This is the direction we are moving in.

What type of point of no return? And for how much longer can the guy go? He just should be able to stay there and keep going against her will? If she's screaming for the guy to stop, I think any decent guy would stop.


That's not the issue.  The issue is a situation is being created where an objective truth can never be determined, thereby making it much easier to bring false accusations if the encounter doesn't turn out as the woman wants (such as if the guy doesn't call her the next day).

If you don't believe this happens, you live in a fantasy world.  In fairness, it probably happens more often to men who have something, such as money, that such a woman can get from him in return.

I don't support rape, but I think the law has the balance the rights of both parties to minimize false accusations.  Our legal system is already functioning as a means of legalized extortion, and anything that adds to the problem is bad, in my opinion.

Ten years ago, I would have agreed with you, but I have seen too much.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,714
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2005, 09:13:04 PM »

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2005, 09:14:00 PM »

No, he said there's a point of no return.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2005, 09:21:50 PM »

"I have a headache from all the noise after attending that pro-life rally, damn liberals"
hahaha Cheesy
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2005, 03:54:38 AM »

The moral of this story is:
When confrontated by the police, deny everything.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2005, 06:22:32 AM »

No, he said there's a point of no return.

Thanks Philip.  But I have no illusions that BRTD will understand my point.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2005, 06:39:29 AM »

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2005, 06:55:00 AM »

So you think a girl saying yes at any time should give a guy free reign to do whatever he wants for any amount of time?

I think basically what dazzleman was trying to say is that, if a woman is able to decide she doesn't want sex anymore after penetration has occurred, and if it's considered rape the moment after the woman has decided that she doesn't want sex, then unless the guy is able to teleport out of the female the instant that she decides she doesn't want sex, he's essentially accidentally raping her, and could be charged as such, which is obviously not what such a law is intended to do.  All he's saying is that there needs to be some consideration for the man, instead of making women able to turn men into rapists in the eyes of the law purely through revoking their consent to sex, and I would agree with him.

Regarding the issue at hand where the guy grabbed the child by the arm, I think that the correct response would be to ask "why the hell is restraining a minor a sex offense", and then change it.  No need to inflame the situation by pointing at a large group of people and randomly blaming them for it.

Thanks Gabu.  I think it's important that the law be structured in a reasonable way, and it's better for women if that is the case too.

We're already heading to the point where we make it too easy to make false claims, and when that happens fewer people will believe the true ones.  The Kobe Bryant case is a perfect example of this trend.  I didn't believe the accuser for a number of reasons, and I think it was a big mistake to bring charges in a case like this because that undermines more legitimate cases.

Sexual harassment is another issue where women have figured out that they can profit by making up false claims.  It is in the best interests of both men and women to have laws written in such a way that they are objectively defined, and not subject to too much interpretation.  This is contrary to a major feminist goal, which is to have rape and sexual harassment subject to a subjective definition supplied by the woman -- in other words, it's rape or sexual harassment if the woman says it is.  I strongly oppose this.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.063 seconds with 12 queries.