Search results

As you seem to be stuck on loop let me make the clear even clearer - even to you. Cases require evidence to get to court in our legal systems and the likes of Derf's feeble scenario don't count, remotely. If only you put so much effort into taking the guy to task who wouldn't consider it rape if...

"Not anything" then. From the get go it was proof that was required had you been reading along. Lame scenarios don't warrant a verdict as there can't even be one.

It isn't, remotely. Derf's scenario wouldn't have even made it to court and if you actually read people's posts properly you'd know that nobody would advocate the man being found guilty based on his lame hypothetical. Cases need evidence so no verdict even required. Maybe if you spent less time...

Did you think that you could just snip a quote (again) and pretend that you've not made a complete clown of yourself in doing so (again)? There's no way a guilty/not guilty verdict can even be given in Derf's scenario for reasons already outlined and unless your idea of worthwhile contribution...

Gonna be replying to yourself then are you? If you'd read things through properly instead of inventing your own moronic "assessments" about what other people believe in regards to the topic you'd have had your answer multiple times over.

Oh, so it's 'either/or' with you is it? There's room for question if little else with Derf's scenario and obviously there's nothing in it that resembles "evidence" in it that would justify a conviction. How have you not got this yet?

You're not really all that surprised though, right?

There's not enough in Derf's scenario to decide guilt or innocence. It's nowhere near detailed enough.

I didn't concoct any scenario and the answer was given to Derf's in my immediate response to it. That you somehow missed it and idiotically rambled on about how I would convict people without evidence and other rubbish is solely on you. The answer was there from the get go. Proof. As with any...

I gave a straight answer from the get go with Derf's scenario that could hardly have been clearer. The sort that proves that someone had forced themselves on another. Duh. Oh wow, are you going for an irony award?! You've failed to read what I said in a clear and straightforward manner...

Yeah, even in the UK they had "Who shot JR" T shirts that sold out. Dallas was a big soap over here in the early 80's.

Well, never watched Dallas so wouldn't know anything about it to be fair, well, apart from JR Ewing getting shot. So little telly to choose from it made headline news in the UK even back at the time.

Fat chance of the latter happening with some risible elements here. What you describe would absolutely be rape and only complete morons and ignoramuses would deny that this and similar occurs in plenty of marriages.

Not in Derf's scenario because it's too vague and lacks detailed specifics. That's why I broadened it out to the point that if it could be proved that the husband had forced himself on his wife then he'd be guilty of rape and should be lobbed in jail. Derf wouldn't consider the husband guilty of...

I doubt even Stripe knows what he's trying to demonstrate apart from being a clown and about as funny. Before Stripe waded in I was arguing that forced sex in a marriage is rape which you and I agree on along wih any rational person and to be fair, even Stripe.

My initial response to Derf's scenario (again). "Your scenario is lame as anything frankly. Do you honesty think that loving married couples have sex on set days or something? If the wife complained to a friend that her supposedly loving and cherishing husband had forced her into sex against...

If there was sufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict regarding anyone culpable of a crime then yeah, sure. In this vague hypothetical scenario there isn't enough proof to even have it go to court as outlined previous. Unlike you I don't cast false aspersions as you've done twice with me...

It wouldn't be me who'd be finding a perpetrator guilty, it would be a court of law. There'd have to be sufficient evidence to warrant a guilty verdict as you should well know, right? Who, the guy in that scenario? No way of knowing. Still, at least you seem to have stopped with the nonsense...

Nope, but you carry on deluding yourself if ya like. Won't affect reality though.

Of course not. Guilt can and should only be determined by evidence to support it. Considering I haven't given a guilty conviction then that's rather moot. Of course there's implied force or at least the very real possibility of it, else why is the wife's friend so insistent on her filing...