See here is the problem....

Imagine a family member or a really good friend of yours was involved in an incident where they were accused of sexual abuse. Because of how close they were to you, you considered helping them with respect to such an accusation. Instead of explaining that they were innocent and explaining vin relation to the situation at issue, they explain to you that due to there accusers appearance they would never get involved with them.

Does not that mean that if in fact a person is attractive to them they would assault them sexually and is that without consent a crime???

I'm not exactly sure what the question is. But from experience as an LEO, most sexual assaults have nothing to do with attraction. They are mostly about power and control.

I'm not exactly sure what the question is. But from experience as an LEO, most sexual assaults have nothing to do with attraction. They are mostly about power and control.

originally posted by: Kashai
Imagine a family member or a really good friend of yours was involved in an incident where they were accused of sexual abuse. Because of how close they were to you, you considered helping them with respect to such an accusation. Instead of explaining that they were innocent and explaining vin relation to the situation at issue, they explain to you that due to there accusers appearance they would never get involved with them.

Does not that mean that if in fact a person is attractive to them they would assault them sexually and is that without consent a crime???

This does not make grammatical sense to me. I do not understand what you are trying to say. I'm with you until here:

'explaining vin relation to the situation at issue, they explain to you that due to there [their] accusers appearance they would never get involved with them.'

First of all: "vin" is that "in"? Let's assume the typo for a moment. You're saying your person claims he would never get involved with his accuser because of their appearance. is that what he is saying?

OK, so we go from there and THEN you say, that IF a person WERE attractive to [your person] then they WOULD assault that person?

I mean "get involved" does NOT mean "assault without permission." if I'm attracted to you, does that mean I would automatically "assault" you? What if I said, "Wow! I'm really attracted to you. Wanna go out?" And so we had coffee and went our separate ways. I'm not seeing the connection here.

a reply to: JDeLattre89


Obviously my point is that if a person tells you that they did not sexually abuse a person because they were not good enough? Does not that offer in reality that they would do something like that if a person they were attracted to were
available???

a reply to: Kashai

I imagine it is probably just a defense against the accusation. It is being used like an alabai.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: JDeLattre89


Obviously my point is that if a person tells you that they did not sexually abuse a person because they were not good enough? Does not that offer in reality that they would do something like that if a person they were attracted to were
available???

No, it's NOT "obvious" at all. it's gramatically so obtuse and convoluted that it's difficult to understand what you meant. But the answer to your question is: NO. If you find a person unattractive, you don't want to have anything to do with them. It DOES NOT FOLLOW that if that person found someone attractive, they would automatically assault them. That is completely absurd reasoning.

The point being is that if a person told your they would never sexually assault a person because they were "not attractive enough", that is OK???

Obviously you enable Sex Offenders.

originally posted by: Kashai
The point being is that if a person told your they would never sexually assault a person because they were "not attractive enough", that is OK???

Obviously you enable Sex Offenders.

Was that was what said though?

Was it not something along the lines of the accuser saying that during their involvement he assaulted her, to which he replied that he would not be involved with her in the first place?

So, you are saying that they are telling you...

"They didn't, or couldn't have done it, because the victim is not attractive?"

originally posted by: Kashai
The point being is that if a person told your they would never sexually assault a person because they were "not attractive enough", that is OK???

Obviously you enable Sex Offenders.

That is the kind of absurd reasoning one expects these days. Try using that logic in court. you'd be laughed off the stand. You're quick to throw accusations around. Sounds like you already have the guy convicted. Your argument, and this thread, are not worth pursuing.

Their

a reply to: Kashai

This is a "propositional fallacy" known as Affirming the Consequent. While in computer programming the logic may hold up, humans do not follow boolean logic, as we are not rational most often, and the vernacular doesn't always lend itself to the greatest clarity.

Besides, what he said is pretty reprehensible IMO. No need to fancy it up any more.

originally posted by: Kashai
The point being is that if a person told your they would never sexually assault a person because they were "not attractive enough", that is OK???

Obviously you enable Sex Offenders.

I disagree. Rape is not about attraction, its about power. Mr. Trumps comments indicate that he was thinking about attraction, which seems to be more in line with a normal male (l.e., not thinking about sex from the perspective of force and power, nd seeing it more as attraction and lust).

That doesn't come across as "rapey" to me. Piggish? Sure. But being a pig isn't illegal.

humans do not follow boolean logic, as we are not rational most often, and the vernacular doesn't always lend itself to the greatest clarity.

The best thing about a Boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.

The fact Trump is trying to make an allegation of sexual assault into a joke speaks to his moral character. It doesn't mean he's guilty, but it does make a good argument he's deeply sexist. How many times now has he characterized woman solely on their looks, both negatively and positively? What's this telling children? It's telling them how you look is all that matters. If you look bad, you'll be ridiculed and shamed publicly, possibly lose your job.

He's said so many reprehensible things now. Of undocumented immigrants, he said "many of which are drug dealers, rapists..." He's called for a database containing all muslims in the US--because there's a "muslim problem". He wants to ban muslims--a religion!--from certain territories from immigrating to the US. He says blacks "live in hell," ignoring many don't and also ignoring any hell which exists is rooted in racism and white privilege.

He's simple minded and unfit to be president.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: JDeLattre89


Obviously my point is that if a person tells you that they did not sexually abuse a person because they were not good enough? Does not that offer in reality that they would do something like that if a person they were attracted to were
available???

No, sometimes that is someone denying by not denying. Hopefully they are just being defensive, but it could be an indicator that they committed the assault. Good luck to you.

a reply to: Kashai

I didn't like that answer. I think he is guilty.

Perhaps deep down you do too.