Well if a bunch of players came out and said Giggs was a role model for them in certain aspects of their lives I'd look like an idiot trying to dispute that.I'd definitely bristle if someone cited Giggs as a role model for young players. Exceptional footballer, less than exceptional person.
But if they came out and praised him for being an exemplary family man...Well if a bunch of players came out and said Giggs was a role model for them in certain aspects of their lives I'd look like an idiot trying to dispute that.
What if his wife praised him for being an exemplary family man? Would you dispute that too?But if they came out and praised him for being an exemplary family man...
I would be seriously baffled, and speculate that it's some sort of PR exercise for some reason. In Giggs' case, anyway. Surely she's not going to do that, though.What if his wife praised him for being an exemplary family man? Would you dispute that too?
True.I would be seriously baffled, and speculate that it's some sort of PR exercise for some reason. In Giggs' case, anyway. Surely she's not going to do that, though.
What do you need? A picture of him nuts deep in a small boy? Like OJ only his celebrity got him off. Hopefully Weinstein won't get off for the same reason. Cosby going down hopefully suggests things are changing.Nope. The FBI investigated him for what? 20 years? Found no evidence. The media ran a smear campaign against him from the beginning. All of the people who accused him were found to have ulterior motives e.g. one of them defended him tooth and nail when he was alive but then when he died he did a complete u turn cos MJ’s lawyers/management didn’t allow him to produce a documentary about him.
No.True.
Now back to Kobe... Do you have the same stance on all his teammates and opponent's and family paying him glowing tribute?
He got off because, like I said, the FBI investigated him for 20 YEARS including an extensive search of his house WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, meaning he didn’t have time to hide any evidence (not like there was any) and all they found was pornographic books (still unopened in their packaging, mind you) sent from fans. Plus the 5 or so accusers all had holes in their stories or had ulterior motives.What do you need? A picture of him nuts deep in a small boy? Like OJ only his celebrity got him off. Hopefully Weinstein won't get off for the same reason. Cosby going down hopefully suggests things are changing.
How many children and their families did he pay off and how much did it cost him?He got off because, like I said, the FBI investigated him for 20 YEARS including an extensive search of his house WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE, meaning he didn’t have time to hide any evidence (not like there was any) and all they found was pornographic books (still unopened in their packaging, mind you) sent from fans. Plus the 5 or so accusers all had holes in their stories or had ulterior motives.
The original 1993 accusations even started in the first place because Sony, the biggest record label at the time, didn’t want him to have the biggest piece of the pie once he signed that deal so they set him up.
edit: typo
Where is your proof of this?How many children and their families did he pay off and how much did it cost him?
What Giggs did is pretty abhorrent but I view the situations differently. One involved consenting adults, and one didn’t (allegedly).I imagine this is how the (far future hopefully) RIP Ryan Giggs thread would look like on r/NBA... Skewed to the extreme and in no way representative of his mainstream, reasonable legacy analysis
I don't know if it's what you call proof or just reports but -Where is your proof of this?
Of course the lawyers of those two lying scumbags Robson and Safechuck would claim thisI don't know if it's what you call proof or just reports but -
Michael Jackson paid £134 million in payoffs to stop up to 20 sex abuse victims speaking out, say lawyers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-abuse-victims-speaking-out-say-10159103.html
Well how much and to how many then?Of course the lawyers of those two lying scumbags Robson and Safechuck would claim this
How would anyone know but the now deceased MJ know? I find it funny people like @Wibble are so astonished that people have opposing views. There’s millions of people who think MJ is guilty and millions who think he’s innocent. Yet there’s people claiming their opinion as fact in here over Kobe, MJ or whoever.Well how much and to how many then?
You should read his statement again.You're missing the point.
Rape is a non-consensual sexual encounter. That's the definition. When he admits that the woman did not consider the sexual encounter consensual, he per definitionem admitted it was rape.
You might say he was not aware of her lack of consent but his perceived ignorance doesn't mean it's not rape.
You might say it was a calculated statement designed to make the case go away and he didn't actually mean it. It might even be true but the actual words he said still mean that he had a non-consensual sexual encounter, ergo rape.
Whether there was enough evidence to satisfy the standards of a criminal trial, I don't know. On that basis I'm not sure he should have been convicted, if only because of the sanctity of the due process. But again, the words he said still mean that it was rape.
I would have thought his lawyers know.How would anyone know but the now deceased MJ know? I find it funny people like @Wibble are so astonished that people have opposing views. There’s millions of people who think MJ is guilty and millions who think he’s innocent. Yet there’s people claiming their opinion as fact in here over Kobe, MJ or whoever.
On another forum I visit, there’s probably only 2-3 people who believe Kobe is a rapist. The other hundreds or thousands are in the Kobe camp.
You should read his statement again.
She did not consent to this encounter = she was raped. That's what the words mean. He does not deny they had sex and he does not deny that one party views that sex as non-consensual. It's really very simple.After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.
Jesus christ. It's an analogyComparing the definite death of 100 000's of Armenian Woman, Children and men, with a rape that may or may not have been a rape is disgraceful. End of.
But we live in a world where 1 American life is worth 10000 brown ones, so who cares. Ok.
If you don't mind me asking - where are you from?She did not consent to this encounter = she was raped. That's what the words mean. He does not deny they had sex and he does not deny that one party views that sex as non-consensual. It's really very simple.
What does that have to do with quite literally anything I said?If you don't mind me asking - where are you from?
I didn't mean it to be an intrusive question. I am wondering if the translations of his statement can have anything to do with different English dialects.What does that have to do with quite literally anything I said?
I don't think it has anything to do with language - it's more of a different interpretation of what rape and consent is.I didn't mean it to be an intrusive question. I am wondering if the translations of his statement can have anything to do with different English dialects.
For example - the simple fact that he includes "...how she feels" tells me that he is not admitting to rape. You and others think his statement is a formal admission of guilt. I think I would be more inclined to interpret his statement the way you do if he had said, " I now understand that she did not consent to this encounter."
i always loyalty armenia city in the skyAs if American citizens know that Armenia is a real country.
He felt at the time she was ok with it and claims she did not say no. Consent is not necessarily verbal.There is no sliding scale to consent. You either consent to have sex, or you do not. She did not consent.
There are similarities to this case and the Ronaldo case. Probably not in the manner you think, though.
My parents believe OJ got off because of Rodney King incident and other injustices, as a gift to the black community to give us a victory.What do you need? A picture of him nuts deep in a small boy? Like OJ only his celebrity got him off. Hopefully Weinstein won't get off for the same reason. Cosby going down hopefully suggests things are changing.
Don't trust anything these opportunists say. But in any case celebs have to settle accusations out of court whether guilty or not. Will Smith says he has a lawyer on a monthly retainer as he gets 16 law suits per year. WILL SMITHI don't know if it's what you call proof or just reports but -
Michael Jackson paid £134 million in payoffs to stop up to 20 sex abuse victims speaking out, say lawyers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-abuse-victims-speaking-out-say-10159103.html
I'm with you on just about everything. I don't see how anyone can interpret rape differently - it either is or isn't. On the other hand, consent is where it gets muddy.I don't think it has anything to do with language - it's more of a different interpretation of what rape and consent is.
First, I do not consider it a "formal" admission of guilt. It certainly could not be the basis of a criminal conviction.
With that out of the way: if during a sexual encounter, one party feels the encounter wasn't consensual, then for me that's rape. Even if the other party is unaware of the lack of consent. Again, I am NOT saying that this alone should be enough to convict someone on a rape charge. I'm not debating the legal standard here: I'm saying that if a person feels that he or she did not consent to an ongoing sexual encounter then that person is being raped.
Bryant certainly did not admit that he intentionally and knowingly raped her. But that doesn't actually matter that much to me. For example, if you have a sex with a girl who is blackout drunk but beforehand, while sober, indicated she would be willing to have sex and therefore you believed she consented, that's still rape. Even if you sincerely and fully believed that she consented.
Do you think he admitted to accidentally raping her? I ask, because for me, his statement was not admitting to raping her in any fashion, but others think differently. For those here (you included) that are certain his statement "literally says he raped her", I am still unclear as to how they are drawing that conclusion. In your statement above, if you take out two words, "intentionally and knowingly" the statement reads, "Bryant certainly did not admit that he raped her." Which is not what your stance has been.Bryant certainly did not admit that he intentionally and knowingly raped her.
There's a huge loophole here. The other person has to be aware that consent is withdrawn. If 2 non-passed out parties are having sex and consent was given, it has to be verbally or non-verbally communicated to one party that consent is being withdrawn. If that doesn't happen, I can't after the fact say that I wasn't into it, and that means I was raped.I don't think it has anything to do with language - it's more of a different interpretation of what rape and consent is.
First, I do not consider it a "formal" admission of guilt. It certainly could not be the basis of a criminal conviction.
With that out of the way: if during a sexual encounter, one party feels the encounter wasn't consensual, then for me that's rape. Even if the other party is unaware of the lack of consent. Again, I am NOT saying that this alone should be enough to convict someone on a rape charge. I'm not debating the legal standard here: I'm saying that if a person feels that he or she did not consent to an ongoing sexual encounter then that person is being raped.
Bryant certainly did not admit that he intentionally and knowingly raped her. But that doesn't actually matter that much to me. For example, if you have a sex with a girl who is blackout drunk but beforehand, while sober, indicated she would be willing to have sex and therefore you believed she consented, that's still rape. Even if you sincerely and fully believed that she consented.
Submission is not consent.He felt at the time she was ok with it and claims she did not say no. Consent is not necessarily verbal.
Submission is not consent.
“Consent” means cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will and with knowledge of the nature of the act. Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 18-3-401.
I really hope not, but you are likely correct. Not down with consensual, if tawdry, sex being compared to what Bryant was accused of though.I imagine this is how the (far future hopefully) RIP Ryan Giggs thread would look like on r/NBA... Skewed to the extreme and in no way representative of his mainstream, reasonable legacy analysis
No I'm just saying that there are more accurate depictions of Kobe's legacy being written in the media and basketball oriented forums that of course include the case but have a lot more nuance and perspective. Not comparing cheating to (alleged) rape.I really hope not, but you are likely correct. Not down with consensual, if tawdry, sex being compared to what Bryant was accused of though.
But that's not how it works! You can't just take out words and then claim my "updated" opinion is inconsistent with earlier opinions.I'm with you on just about everything. I don't see how anyone can interpret rape differently - it either is or isn't. On the other hand, consent is where it gets muddy.
Do you think he admitted to accidentally raping her? I ask, because for me, his statement was not admitting to raping her in any fashion, but others think differently. For those here (you included) that are certain his statement "literally says he raped her", I am still unclear as to how they are drawing that conclusion. In your statement above, if you take out two words, "intentionally and knowingly" the statement reads, "Bryant certainly did not admit that he raped her." Which is not what your stance has been.
Yes but when you say "it doesn't happen" - who decides it didn't happen? If one party completely freezes up in fear, does that constitute communication of withdrawal of consent? If someone says "please stop" or "no" once and the other party doesn't stop and they are afraid to further protest because they might fear the other turns violent... is that a withdrawal of consent?There's a huge loophole here. The other person has to be aware that consent is withdrawn. If 2 non-passed out parties are having sex and consent was given, it has to be verbally or non-verbally communicated to one party that consent is being withdrawn. If that doesn't happen, I can't after the fact say that I wasn't into it, and that means I was raped.
It is how it works, its exactly how it works. Words mean something and are spoken or written to convey a specific message. In this case they were probably even more scrutinized and used to specifically ensure there was no admission of guilt - much more so than in a casual conversation. If he wanted to "admit to rape" as you and others say he has, his statement would have been different.But that's not how it works! You can't just take out words and then claim my "updated" opinion is inconsistent with earlier opinions.
I get what you are saying, but its not the greatest of analogies. Death is finite and easily definable. There are many more things in play in a rape/non-rape situation. As much as we would all like such a horrible situation as rape to be black and white, reality tells us its not due to so many possible interpretations.Also, just think about it. Let's say you ask for ibuprofen and instead I accidentally give you cyanide and then you die.
I would not admit that I intentionally and knowingly killed you. However, that wouldn't mean I did not kill you!
Of course!Yes but when you say "it doesn't happen" - who decides it didn't happen? If one party completely freezes up in fear, does that constitute communication of withdrawal of consent? If someone says "please stop" or "no" once and the other party doesn't stop and they are afraid to further protest because they might fear the other turns violent... is that a withdrawal of consent?
Obtaining consent is both parties' responsibility. If you know you definitely want to have sex with someone, the burden is on you to make sure the other party consents. Pay attention to the partner, ask "is it OK?" if you have any doubts; do not choke someone without agreeing to some form of safe word or something beforehand because that shit is dangerous.
That makes no sense though. Once she decides she doesn't want to have sex, there's no consent. Whether that lack of consent is communicated to Kobe is separate to that. So if she feels there wasn't consent then there wasn't consent because she knows what she wanted better than he does. That line seems to be saying "I know she genuinely thinks she didn't want to have sex but I disagree", which is stupid.Of course!
Now the problem is we don't know what went down. Some are comfortable inferring from Kobe's statements that in the moment, he understood that consent was withdrawn, and he went ahead with it anyway. How I understand his comments are.. she says I raped her. I believe (present tense) the encounter was consentual (i.e. consent from both sides). I understand how she feels otherwise.
The principle of affirmative consent is utilized in colleges to make sure as much as possible both parties are continuously aware of consent, but it has no standing in law.
That's what I'm saying (the bolded). If she communicated lack of consent and it was proven then this is an open/shut case.That makes no sense though. Once she decides she doesn't want to have sex, there's no consent. Whether that lack of consent is communicated to Kobe is separate to that. So if she feels there wasn't consent then there wasn't consent because she knows what she wanted better than he does. That line seems to be saying "I know she genuinely thinks she didn't want to have sex but I disagree", which is stupid.
The logical argument one could make on Kobe's behalf is that there wasn't consent but he genuinely didn't realize that, not that there was consent but the girl doesn't realize it. Which is why we keep pointing to Kobe's statement as being damning.
This has always been the most difficult thing for me to get my head around when speaking of these types of cases. Historically, these cases have stemmed from a participant saying "no, stop" or something along those lines. More recently, we speak more and more about giving consent in the form of "ok, yes, we can have sex", etc.Whether that lack of consent is communicated to Kobe is separate to that.
ExactlyThis has always been the most difficult thing for me to get my head around when speaking of these types of cases. Historically, these cases have stemmed from a participant saying "no, stop" or something along those lines. More recently, we speak more and more about giving consent in the form of "ok, yes, we can have sex", etc.
I struggle personally analyzing these cases because "giving consent" and "lack of consent" are two different things for me. If I try to apply them to my personal experiences, I am not sure I can recall a time when a partner has said, "we can have sex" or "yes, you can insert your penis in me." Everything was organic and just kind of progressed. On the other side of the coin, I have had instances where things were getting passionate and a partner specifically stated, "hey, I am not ready to have sex" to which you know where you stand.
I think many people have sex with lack of consent and am not sure lack of consent can be communicated. If a participant says no, that is non-consent for me and not lack of consent. I know it may seem like semantics, but I think this is where many of these cases get bogged down.
