I agree. Often they rely on someones reputation. Unfortunately my friend's daughter had a bit of a reputation for making things up when she was younger. She was also rude with police officer. However in this case I believe her. Firstly, she had a good job and was working at the time. Also her stories tended to be far fetched and dramatic. Like saying she was dragged into a vehicle and gang raped before managing to make an escape... This time was completely differant and you could tell something bad had happened to her as she turned to drink afterwards. Besides smart rapists will always go for women with a bad reputation so they can get away with it.
Saudi punishes gang rape victim with 200 lashes
- Thread starter lumbingmi
- Start date
I agree. Often they rely on someones reputation. Unfortunately my friend's daughter had a bit of a reputation for making things up when she was younger. She was also rude with police officer. However in this case I believe her. Firstly, she had a good job and was working at the time. Also her stories tended to be far fetched and dramatic. Like saying she was dragged into a vehicle and gang raped before managing to make an escape... This time was completely differant and you could tell something bad had happened to her as she turned to drink afterwards. Besides smart rapists will always go for women with a bad reputation so they can get away with it.
GarnetTigerMom
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,951
- Reaction score
- 1
yep, but rapist also go after women who have good reputation as well. So, not always the women with bad raputations. But that don't give the rapists the right to rape a woman period. Good or bad reputations don't make it "O.K." for a man to rape a woman. Rapist knows the law, they know it wrong, they also know they can get away with it. But sadly some rapeist get caught but always end up getting out of jail for short time and rape again. They are monsters.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2007
- Messages
- 2,424
- Reaction score
- 88
I stay out of political a religious discussions because passions rule over facts. For instance, to claim atheism is not an equally passionate belief with a set of self-serving, controlling behaviors absolutely flies in the face of observable facts. But then many who argue politics and religion choose to operate on how they feel rather than what the facts may be.
As some have pointed out, this statement tries the same tact:
Muslim countries have less crimes because of strict laws...
USA got more crimes than any other countries.[/I]
Many caught that it’s blatant oversimplification of historic and demographic data.
First, over 50 countries have Muslim-majority population. Muslim law controls much of the population. You are saying those countries have less crime? That’s not supported in fact. The United Nations, only one reporting authority, shows Muslim-dominated African countries alone feature the worst crimes against humanity than any other place else on earth.
That revelation is even more impressive when data-collecting agencies find control of reporting agencies and the press hide the real figures. After all, a crime is no longer a crime when perpetrators/victims (many times family, including children) have been tried, convicted, and executed right in their home or in the street. Gone. Never was.
One the other hand, one of the reasons for soaring “crime” stats in the U. S. is so many crimes on our ever-growing law books. And every little one of them are made public for one and all.
A conservative estimate made by Harvard Law Review is at least half the crimes in the U.S. are considered family matters by Muslim law. In the recent death by stoning of a daughter for wearing the wrong clothing, she was the only listed criminal, not all the happy friends and relatives participating in her just atonement.
The “comparison” presented is hopelessly skewed in a variety of ways, but I guess that’s a smart ploy. It’s extremely easy to construct a semi-plausible lie based on made-up statistics, and then the opposition has to spend its resources hunting, verifying, and organizing refutations.
Here's the kicker. Note that it will not bother the pseudo-fact person. He or she will be very happy to make up something else, and off we all go again.
This is an analogy, not name-calling: My granddad paraphrased a warning to avoid wrestling with pigs. "There's never a change in the pig's behavior, you get yourself filthy, and truth be told, the pig had a fun time."
As some have pointed out, this statement tries the same tact:
Muslim countries have less crimes because of strict laws...
USA got more crimes than any other countries.[/I]
Many caught that it’s blatant oversimplification of historic and demographic data.
First, over 50 countries have Muslim-majority population. Muslim law controls much of the population. You are saying those countries have less crime? That’s not supported in fact. The United Nations, only one reporting authority, shows Muslim-dominated African countries alone feature the worst crimes against humanity than any other place else on earth.
That revelation is even more impressive when data-collecting agencies find control of reporting agencies and the press hide the real figures. After all, a crime is no longer a crime when perpetrators/victims (many times family, including children) have been tried, convicted, and executed right in their home or in the street. Gone. Never was.
One the other hand, one of the reasons for soaring “crime” stats in the U. S. is so many crimes on our ever-growing law books. And every little one of them are made public for one and all.
A conservative estimate made by Harvard Law Review is at least half the crimes in the U.S. are considered family matters by Muslim law. In the recent death by stoning of a daughter for wearing the wrong clothing, she was the only listed criminal, not all the happy friends and relatives participating in her just atonement.
The “comparison” presented is hopelessly skewed in a variety of ways, but I guess that’s a smart ploy. It’s extremely easy to construct a semi-plausible lie based on made-up statistics, and then the opposition has to spend its resources hunting, verifying, and organizing refutations.
Here's the kicker. Note that it will not bother the pseudo-fact person. He or she will be very happy to make up something else, and off we all go again.
This is an analogy, not name-calling: My granddad paraphrased a warning to avoid wrestling with pigs. "There's never a change in the pig's behavior, you get yourself filthy, and truth be told, the pig had a fun time."