[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

xerxes xerxes:

Ignore him. The right found a new object for its regularly scheduled 2 minute hate.

Actually you guys have been having a bad week, haven't you? First your wunderkid Ghomeshi turns out to be a sexual assaulter. Then "the voice of her generation" gets mad when she gets quoted boasting about her early days as a sister Molister. I even heard one yesterday about how Polanski is still trying to worm his way back to America, but no joy for Roman.

So yeah that's a lot of misery for the left, but we on the right must control our schadenfraude, because there were also innocent victims of the leftist sleaze wave.

Ghomeshi was the host of a music/cultural show. How is he "the voice of the left."

You don't know? C'mon Zip, he's not White AND he worked for the CBC. That automatically makes him a "voice of the left"

[PublicAnimalNo9]

andyt andyt:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

andyt andyt:

Did she diddle her sister at 17? The excerpt quoted in this thread didn't say. A quote showing that she did so would be nice. Of course if she did, that is clear sexual abuse/incest.

Right, because despite her engaging in that activity since she was 7, she suddenly stopped when she became a teenager?
Or maybe Ms. Dunham was just smart enough to not admit to a crime in writing.

You never played doctor as a kid?

Uhhh not with a sibling I didn't. Just the girl next door and the one across the street when I was a kid. But guess what, they weren't 6 years younger than me either.

andyt andyt:

Most of us did, most of us stopped for a bit before getting back into it after puberty. Are we all child abusers now too?

Did you play doctor with someone 6 years younger than you as well? Did you do such a great job of grooming them that at 11 years of age they'd literally beg to share a bed with 17 year old you?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Right, because despite her engaging in that activity since she was 7, she suddenly stopped when she became a teenager?
Or maybe Ms. Dunham was just smart enough to not admit to a crime in writing.

Maybe. Speculation either way.

Speculation based on 47 years of observing people and a basic understanding of human behavior.

[MeganC]

If Lena was a boy and had been doing this to his sister for ten years no one would say it WASN'T child molest and everyone would want him locked up. Why should Lena be any different?

[Lemmy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Speculation based on 47 years of observing people and a basic understanding of human behavior.

Curious that you're allowed speculation here but screamed "SPECULATION! SPECULATION!" during Rob Ford's downfall, the difference between those cases being that this time there is no actual legal evidence of wrong doing but there were reams of it against Ford. Odd contradiction on your part.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Ghomeshi was the host of a music/cultural show. How is he "the voice of the left."

Because maclean's says he is.

$1:

Since Ghomeshi’s Facebook post emerged, a large number of Canadians have rushed to the radio host’s defence with almost lightning speed and, sometimes, unadulterated glee. Affirmative posts underneath the host’s Facebook status urge him to keep his chin up, and keep fighting the good fight. Ghomeshi is a voice of liberal reason, after all, an annoyingly affable metrosexual who has hosted radio segments about the meaning of rape culture. Not so long ago, he was on the air telling Anne Marie Owens, editor-in-chief of the National Post—formerly deputy editor of Maclean’s—how special it was that a woman had finally earned the top spot at a Canadian newspaper. It may be this progressive zeal, and his friendly disposition, that’s made his fans discount even the slightest possibility that his accusers might be telling the truth—as though social enlightenment precludes criminal behaviour.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/sex- ... d-the-cbc/

Oh, well if Macleans says so, then it must be true. This is an op-ed piece; th eop in op-ed piece means "opinion."

As a source for it's conclusions it uses "Affirmative posts underneath the host’s Facebook status."

Protip: Don't use people's comments on websites as a barometer for the general popualtion at large, because the Crackpot Index tends to pretty high in those comment sections.

I visit this and one other forum that discusses primarily political issues. I can say that (a) I don't recall Jian Ghomeshi ever being a touted as a political heavyweight in the past, and (b) I don't recall seeing anyone "rush" to Ghomeshi's defence with "unadulterated glee."

As a lefty myself it's hard to accept that he was the "voice of the left" when, apart from his interview with Billybob Thornton, I never heard of the guy.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Right, because despite her engaging in that activity since she was 7, she suddenly stopped when she became a teenager?
Or maybe Ms. Dunham was just smart enough to not admit to a crime in writing.

Maybe. Speculation either way.

Speculation based on 47 years of observing people and a basic understanding of human behavior.

Well, I guess we'll have to see. The sister is still around presumably. We'll see what she has to say. And any other victims she may have had. And the police, presumably, don't need a complainant since she's put it all in writing. So we'll see if, as Xort sez, it's chargeable.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

As a lefty myself it's hard to accept that he was the "voice of the left" when, apart from his interview with Billybob Thornton, I never heard of the guy.

In any case Zip, I don't see why it matters. I didn't say Ghomeshi was, as you put in quotation marks, "The voice of the left".

I called him the left's "Wunderkid".

I called Lena Dunham "the voice of her generation". The reason being it's a well-known quote from the character she plays in her TV show "Girls". She claims to be the "voice of her generation".

Look it up if you don't believe me.

[Xort]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Xortbus Xortbus:

I will point out that you didn't even start to explain why she didn't have intent to touch her sister.

Yeah, I did. Young children cannot form criminal intent, whether their actions are intentional or not.

Name calling? Really?

Let me laugh harder. Fact is, the state of NY says they can

Xortbus Xortbus:

Or even better how an action replicated by an older more male attacker wouldn't also fail your personal standard for intent.

An older male wasn't involved. So your point is moot. And the legal standard for mens rea is not my personal standard. It's the standard in virtually every western legal system. [/quote]Yet she did have criminal intent, as evidence by the fact that she hide her abuse. She knew what she was doing was wrong.

Explain how an older pedophile that did the exact same thing with the same mindset wouldn't also be a criminal.

$1:

You're misusing the term "intent", as well as "basic intent" and "oblique intent". How the hell do you conclude that there's "oblique intent"? Did you just read that term yesterday and decide to throw it in?

Her actions were not done with the intent to cause harm (probably), but still did harm. Unless you want to say that sexually abusing infants doesn't actually hurt them. In which case, I guess people sexually abusing infants aren't doing anything criminal because they didn't have any criminal intent, or cause any harm, and the basic intent doesn't matter in your mind for some reason.

Not that I expect a reasoned reply as you have already jumped into the highest of intellectual debating; Name calling.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, I guess we'll have to see. The sister is still around presumably. We'll see what she has to say. And any other victims she may have had. And the police, presumably, don't need a complainant since she's put it all in writing. So we'll see if, as Xort sez, it's chargeable.

With statements from her sister this falls wildly short of any reasonable chance of a conviction so files will also surely not be filed.

A simple defense is "I wrote that to make my book edgy and to sell more, it never happened".

Her sister being an infant at the time couldn't be a witness. As such, they is no evidence other than her book.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

In any case Zip, I don't see why it matters. I didn't say Ghomeshi was, as you put in quotation marks, "The voice of the left".

I called him the left's "Wunderkid".

It matters because it ain't true. Unless you mean "left-handed." Because politically, Ghomeshi was no heavyweight, which seems to be what you and Martin are trying to say in your desperation to lay this on the doorstep of the political left.

[xerxes]

If you read Dunnams initial response, she says her sister is laughing at the absurdity of it all.

[sandorski]

andyt andyt:

Did she diddle her sister at 17? The excerpt quoted in this thread didn't say. A quote showing that she did so would be nice. Of course if she did, that is clear sexual abuse/incest.

Just a note: She didn't "diddle" her younger sister. She just took a close look at her vulva and region.

[Zipperfish]

sandorski sandorski:

Just a note: She didn't "diddle" her younger sister. She just took a close look at her vulva and region.

Are you sure it wasn't a pudendum?

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Well, I guess we'll have to see. The sister is still around presumably. We'll see what she has to say. And any other victims she may have had. And the police, presumably, don't need a complainant since she's put it all in writing. So we'll see if, as Xort sez, it's chargeable.

Keep up will ya. She's already spoken out, saying she wasn't abused.
But then she called herself queer, so we can see what damage and denial her sisters actions have wrought.

I guess Dunham is an attention whore of the first order, because while this may not be full on sexual abuse, it certainly seems pretty creepy and getting close to the line.

As for 7 yr olds investigating their younger sibs, I don't know, but I bet many have done similar to Dunham - the question is how long she continued with that.

[Lemmy]

Xort Xort:

Name calling? Really?

Yup. Poopypants.

Xort Xort:

Yet she did have criminal intent, as evidence by the fact that she hide her abuse. She knew what she was doing was wrong.

Knowing (or thinking) an action is/was wrong doesn't constitute criminal intent. I know it's wrong to pick my ass, so I hide that I do it. That doesn't mean I think it's criminal to pick my ass. Feeling embarrassed doesn't mean you think you've done something criminal. People hide things for all sorts of reasons. And it's still moot 'cause she's too young to have intent anyway.

Xort Xort:

Explain how an older pedophile that did the exact same thing with the same mindset wouldn't also be a criminal.

How do you know her mindset? Or that of your hypothetical pedophile? BTW, that was a total fail in your phrasing: "an older pedophile", wrongly stating it as fact that she's a pedophile. Nice try.

Xort Xort:

Her actions were not done with the intent to cause harm (probably), but still did harm. Unless you want to say that sexually abusing infants doesn't actually hurt them. In which case, I guess people sexually abusing infants aren't doing anything criminal because they didn't have any criminal intent, or cause any harm, and the basic intent doesn't matter in your mind for some reason.

Again, because YOUNG CHILDREN CANNOT FORM CRIMINAL INTENT. If a 10 year old, who hates her classmates' guts, shows up at her school armed to the tits and blows away 60 other school kids, that shooter doesn't have criminal intent. Not even if she has Wyle E. Coyote blueprints of the whole plan drawn up in advance. You need to be 12 under the Canadian legal system (which is the one I'm using...if NY really tries 7 year-olds then the American legal system is even more fucked than I presumed).

Xort Xort:

Not that I expect a reasoned reply as you have already jumped into the highest of intellectual debating; Name calling.

I apologize for calling you Xortbus, but I'm not taking back the "dummy" because your statement that preceded my use of that word was daft. When one says daft things, one merits being called a dummy. Don't be so high and mighty; you've tossed at least as many insults my way as I yours over the years.

Xort Xort:

With statements from her sister this falls wildly short of any reasonable chance of a conviction so files will also surely not be filed.

A simple defense is "I wrote that to make my book edgy and to sell more, it never happened".

Lying under oath is a criminal an offense. Surely you wouldn't condone that? Perjuring oneself as a adult is a hell of a lot more serious than anything some 7 year old did.

Xort Xort:

Her sister being an infant at the time couldn't be a witness. As such, they is no evidence other than her book.

If you get that, how is it that you don't get that the same applies to the sister? She's too young to hold responsible in any court other than the court of public opinion. Clearly she's going to be punished for the rest of her life for her admission. Her career, I suspect, has been dealt a serious blow. Isn't that enough in "pound of flesh" terms?