Posts by Kyle Matthews
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__"very inappropriate"__
Let's not mince words. It's "very inappropriate" to serve red wine with fish too. You do agree that sexual violation is criminal.
You're the one that started mincing words. I just think if you're going to do it, it helps to quote the person accurately.
OK, let's do some leaping to determine exactly where the moral line is drawn:
...
So where does the line get drawn, since the exact placement of that line is so important?
I don't see the relevance of a bunch of lines justifying sexual intercourse relate to the topic at hand. As far as I know, no one's accusing any police officers of having any sort of sex here.
So it's not rape, but it carries inevitable connotations of violation and humiliation... and then it doesn't.
Which is it?
My point is, sexual humiliation does not necessarily mean rape. I'm sure some people feel humiliated after an up-close-and-personal visit to the doctor. That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctor did anything but a professional inspection.
__My point was if you're going to argue it's rape__
I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth, otherwise I'll find myself wandering down the street muttering, "Pinochet, Thatcher...".
OK, if you're going to jump into a conversation talking about X, and then start talking about Y, expect people to say "hey, I'm talking about X".
Kyle, Rape is not the same thing as sex. Sex is something people share. It is a depth of intimacy. Rape is the violation of personal boundaries. Rape is violence! Do you get it?
Yeah thanks for that. What it's not, necessarily, is a cavity search.
-
The it's-not-quite-as-bad-as argument. Irrefutable, that is.
No that's not my argument. I was simply agreeing with your point that sexual violation is a crime and it's more than just inappropriate, which is all that you said.
My point was if you're going to argue it's rape, argue that, sexual violation is not necessarily rape, though certainly all rape is sexual violation.
My argument is there's nothing inherent in a cavity search that automatically makes it a sexual violation either, if intent of the searcher is part of your concern. It's possible for a cavity search to be sexual violation, but it's also possible for it not to be.
You need to leap from 'a cavity search apparently took place' to 'rape/sexual violation took place', and the only way you can do that is if 'all cavity searches constitute rape/sexual violation'. And if they do, then NZ customs have got some serious navel gazing in the near future.
And, if you're going to quote me, try and keep the context, since y'all so big on everyone else having to do it. I said it was "very inappropriate". If it actually did happen, then I'd imagine that's how the police would view it too.
G'night.
-
Ever heard of "sexual violation"? It's classified as a crime. More than just "inappropriate"
Yup. But the word that was used was rape, not sexual violation.
-
Kyle - I can go out leaving your comment on rape sitting there. I take it you have completely missed all the stuff about rape being primarily violence rather than sex - that the sexual aspect is merely a tool that effectively expresses the violent subjugation of the victim.
You're reading a whole heap of intent into the actions of a police officer, who might have actually been doing a clinical job of cavity searching someone (if indeed a cavity search took place). You've got this male officer committing sexual violence, that's making a whole heap of assumptions.
Yes, if a male officer did a cavity search on a female, that's a big problem and very inappropriate. That doesn't make it rape though. That makes it a cavity search conducted by the wrong person.
An imposed cavity search by a male police officer on a female inevitably carries with it implications of violence and sexual humiliation.
I'm sure it does. That doesn't necessarily make it rape though.
-
But the police/media/public (re)actions bespeak the disturbing levels of underlying racism within our society, whether you're inclined to notice it or not.
Personally I'm not opposed to the idea that individuals and institutions in our society are, to some extent, racist, and I'm also not opposed to the idea that this made the events of October 15 different in Ruatoki than in other places around New Zealand, though I doubt that was as much racism, probably more 'Tuhoe-ism'. I think a side-by-side comparison of Ruatoki and Wellington or any other place is pretty simplistic, as there's more factors involved than 'race' in the minds of the police.
But I don't believe that the possibility of racism invalidates any of the evidence that the police collected before October 15, including video evidence. And I think the frothing at the mouth about the police gets a bit much given how much worse the events of that day could have been (try transplanting the same situation to the USA and see how many people end up as bodies), and in the context of having a good read of the plans that some of these individuals were starting to form, with 'us' and our society in mind. It's like a big cast iron cauldron calling a one cup kettle black.
-
third hand by the time it gets here
Umm. And if you played Chinese Whispers with it would you claim it was 10th hand? The evidence was written down, reading it doesn't make it third hand, it's just reading.
Re rape: see above.
I'm sure being cavity searched, if that's what actually happened, is pretty unpleasant. It's not rape however, rape is sexual. I'm not sure you should go waving 'rape' around if that's not what happened.
-
I am unable to condemn individuals or a group or an Iwi, based on out-of-context third hand evidence that was, in the first place, acquired, editted and leaked by a party that had just committed very real ATROCITIES against innocent civilians and needs to cover its very ugly rear end.
If you read the leaked material, you'll soon see that it didn't come from the police, but from the defence side of the equation. And most of it was second hand, not third hand.
And it's a bit of a stretch to say that anything that happened on October 15 was an atrocity. Let's keep the serious words for rape, pillage and murder shall we?
-
Golly, I wonder why Howard was so interested in reasserting control over the Northern Territories? INDIAN GIVER!
There's a colonially loaded term.
-
man... a guy can't even pick a fight in this forum without two reasonable people coming along and being all "reasonable"...
Umm OK, hang on a second.
"Che you liberal PC wiffley left-wing pinko give-everything-to-the-Murrays-and-Abos, say-sorry-at-the-drop-of-a-hat... person!"
Now don't say I never give you anything.
-
Sounds like a job for Google TISP. You can trust Google not to be evil...
Well, from that site:
TiSP in-home wireless broadband is:
* Free, fast and highly reliable
* Easy to install -- takes just minutes
* Vacuum-sealed to prevent water damageIf it's vacuum-sealed to prevent water damage, then it's perfect!