Roast Busters

[fidgit]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

But she has exercised her right to be in a situation where she may experience things she will come to regret. I'm not aware of any person of normal mental faculty beyond the age of five who is not aware that there are bad people in the world.

Wow.

A minor, fed alcohol, gets rapped (she's 13 - we don't need to fuck around being precious here, any one having sex with a 13 year old girl is rapping her, by definition, under NZ law). And it's her fault she was rapped, because she put herself in this situation?

She is at fault here, of being raped, because "there are bad people in the world"? Holy fuck man, no, that is not OK. Rape is never OK. She wasn't asking for it because she chose to get drunk (which was almost certainly 'accepted someone's offer of alcohol', since she was 13 and didn't buy it herself [she might have stolen it though]).

You are justifying the actions of men that have group sex with intoxicated minors, on the basis that those girls should have expected this to happen. I really hope know how wrong and fucked up that is, and you're just sticking to this line because it's easier than backing down.

[Lightspeed]

You're speaking to the guy who thinks live-in maids who will do anything "and I mean anything" for next to nothing is a good and just thing. I think you'll find his definition of rape to be very narrow.

[mpx]

Originally Posted by fidgit

Wow.

A minor, fed alcohol, gets rapped (she's 13 - we don't need to fuck around being precious here, any one having sex with a 13 year old girl is rapping her, by definition, under NZ law). And it's her fault she was rapped, because she put herself in this situation?

She is at fault here, of being raped, because "there are bad people in the world"? Holy fuck man, no, that is not OK. Rape is never OK. She wasn't asking for it because she chose to get drunk (which was almost certainly 'accepted someone's offer of alcohol', since she was 13 and didn't buy it herself [she might have stolen it though]).

You are justifying the actions of men that have group sex with intoxicated minors, on the basis that those girls should have expected this to happen. I really hope know how wrong and fucked up that is, and you're just sticking to this line because it's easier than backing down.

I'm fairly sure GT's just cherry-picking replies here for the sake of trolling now, because everything he's saying is going against actual case law, peer reviewed evidence-based literature on developmental stages in adolescents and plain common sense. The fact that he chose not to challenge anything from my replies to him just further cements my opinion that he's just trying to get a rise out of people now.

I don't know any other way to explain what he's saying.

[blur^]

so is it still rape when the 13 year old keeps coming back, asking for it?
literally "wanna roast?"

you keep saying these girls were fed alcohol and they didnt know what they were doing, from the accounts from the girls that isnt the case

[blur^]

so complaints are starting to surface from incidents in 2011
if they had been charged back then they would have both been minors, can they now be charged as adults?

[Dusty]

Let's face it people - GT is a sub-human with no moral compass whatsoever. And he enjoys it. He's there, right now, rolling around in all the shit that we've hurled at him with a huge grin on his face. It's like the more that's thrown at him, the more he eats it up and feels the need to act out. Even now this comment I have made has made him more powerful in the land of trolls than we will ever know...
I'm imagining him as that the Goblin King from The Hobbit. And not the David Bowie version...

But we all know this...

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by blur^

you keep saying these girls were fed alcohol and they didnt know what they were doing, from the accounts from the girls that isnt the case

There is no "the girls", there are many individual girls, with individual experiences and individual responses. If you're jumping to "they were up for it", you're telling us what you think about girls and the rights of others to exploit them. Are you GT and mates?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by mpx

I'm fairly sure GT's just cherry-picking replies here for the sake of trolling now.

I don't think so. I think he's sharing his genuine views (certainly by his own admission he never trolls) and is disregarding information that threatens these views.

[blur^]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

There is no "the girls", there are many individual girls, with individual experiences and individual responses. If you're jumping to "they were up for it", you're telling us what you think about girls and the rights of others to exploit them. Are you GT and mates?

the only first hand account that i know if is from the girl who called radio live
you are right but i am basing my opinion on the facts as they stand

my only beef in all of this is the vigilante crap, how they are already 'guilty' of rape and all the people with the "what if it was your daughter" attitude, well what if it was your son?

[pxpx]

Peer pressure sucks.

[DrTiTus]

If you groom an 8 year old to trust you, and teach her that sucking on your penis is a sign of love, she might even do it without complaint. If you fuck with her head enough, she might even ask if she can suck your penis to show how much she loves you.

This doesn't change the fact she's 8.

A 13 year old might be conditioned to think that "all the kids are doing it", and take part in group sex. She might not complain, and she might even feel like she's accomplished something. She may ask to do it again. She's still 13, and she's still conditioned to behave in a way that she doesn't fully appreciate.

8, 13... anything under 16 is rape, that's the law.

How is this hard to understand? Is there really a need to argue for the right to fuck underage girls if you can convince them not to protest?

[Lightspeed]

Well, that's the other end of the spectrum I think. There are plenty of grown women happy with their choice to be sexually active in their teen and pre-teen years.

Somewhere in the middle is where the cops have to land, I don't envy their job.

[Golden Teapot]

Originally Posted by DrTiTus

How is this hard to understand? Is there really a need to argue for the right to fuck underage girls if you can convince them not to protest?

This has nothing to do with what I have been posting about but I see the need to help and so I'm obliging.

You'll possibly want to take a cursory glance at section 134(4) of the Crimes Act.

I wonder whether it will be shocking for some people here to discover there will be men in NZ who tonight will have sex with 13 year old girls in NZ with no risk of falling afoul of the Crimes Act? Probably the lesson here for these poorly educated folk is that the legislation says what is written in the various Acts and not what people who haven't bothered to look wish for.

Anyway, my exclusive point in this thread is that a teenager is entirely capable of understanding that being drugged-up in an unsafe place might not end well for them; explicitly (which I have already been) this is the "drugged-up" and "bad things might happen" scenario - it's not every other scenario or indeed any other scenario. Everything else some here are imagining is a product of their low levels of reading comprehension.

[DrTiTus]

Sorry, I missed the part where the Roast Busters were a Muslim brotherhood and had each married several of these young girls.

[mpx]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

You'll possibly want to take a cursory glance at section 134(4) of the Crimes Act.

Originally Posted by me a few posts ago that you conveniently omitted

However, the defence could be that they didn't *know* she was 13. [Crimes Act 1961 s134(a)(1) subs(a)(b)(c)].

But then there's the roundabout argument of whether a 13 year old is impaired enough to understand the sexual conduct or the decisions about sexual conduct and so on. [Crimes Act 1961 s138(6) subs(a)(b)(c)(d)]

Section 131B is also relevant. Section 128(a) also talks about how allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances.

The literature is there and if it does go to Court then it will be a safe assumption that Crown will call an independent expert witness, most likely in child psychology with a special interest in developmental limitations that will make an irrevocable statement that 13 is still too young for a person to make some decisions that haven't been influenced by other peers or adult issues.

I can say that decision safely because - and this is for the third time now - it is a fact that has been proven, with evidence, numerous times. No matter how often you say what you're saying, GT, you're a single voice going against hundreds, if not thousands of peer reviewed evidence-based literature contradicting your opinion.

Please don't speak of education as if you're an authority on it.

[Trigger]

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

I wonder whether it will be shocking for some people here to discover there will be men in NZ who tonight will have sex with 13 year old girls in NZ with no risk of falling afoul of the Crimes Act? Probably the lesson here for these poorly educated folk is that the legislation says what is written in the various Acts and not what people who haven't bothered to look wish for.

I'm not sure whether GT is a filthy legal realist, or just a legal positivist. If the former then he's filthy. If the latter then he's not doing legal positivism any favours by arguing in the way he is.

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

Anyway, my exclusive point in this thread is that a teenager is entirely capable of understanding that being drugged-up in an unsafe place might not end well for them; explicitly (which I have already been) this is the "drugged-up" and "bad things might happen" scenario - it's not every other scenario or indeed any other scenario. Everything else some here are imagining is a product of their low levels of reading comprehension.

Let's think about about GT's argument a bit more carefully for a moment. As I understand it his argument is composed of four main claims which lead to his conclusion:

1. The risk of bad things (rape being just one example of a bad thing) happening is undoubtedly increased by intoxication, and unfortunately probably also increased by some choices in clothing that women can make.

2. 13 year old girls are entirely capable of realising that 1 is the case, and taking appropriate steps to protect themselves (such as not being intoxicated or wearing skimpy clothing.)

3. For young girls, being drunk or intoxicated while wearing skimpy clothing is like playing Russian roulette.

4. If a person plays Russian roulette and they die it is their own fault.

Therefore,

Conclusion: If a young girl is raped while intoxicated and/or wearing skimpy clothing it is her own fault.

Perhaps GT does not actually intend to conclude from these points that a rapist is less blameworthy if their victim is intoxicated and wearing a certain kind of clothing. Perhaps he simply does not realise that saying it is the young girl's fault shifts blame away from the rapist. However, GT's comments below would seem to indicate that he does:

Originally Posted by Golden Teapot

... I just don't agree with the vigilante brigade that this is bad - this is just one of the priori-understood likely consequence of choosing to be drunk out in the big wide world where everyone knows there are both good and bad people. ... If you voluntarily play Russian Roulette and mange to shoot yourself in the head then it's your own fault that this happens.

First I'm going to point out the way in which the second premise of GT's argument fails materially*; that is to say why it is false. Then I will show why, even if for the sake of argument we take premises 1, 2, and 4 to all be true, his analogy is still a logical failure. The analogy is a logical failure because it fails to capture the relevant understanding of blameworthiness in the circumstances being discussed. Because of this failure of relevance there is a relevant disanalogy which renders 3 false, and without 3, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Thus, the argument fails logically. GT has either ignored or failed to notice this point.


Looking at some logical and material problems with 2

1 and 4 seem prima facie true, so I'm not going to dispute them. However, 2 seems false. Perhaps it seems false to me because GT constructed his claim badly; it does not communicate his meaning unambiguously. However, I can only go on what he has written, and I am choosing to interpret his claim in the way that is the best for the logic of the argument.

When GT suggests that thirteen year olds are 'entirely capable' of realising the truth of 1 it seems that he is claiming that all properly functioning 13 year olds must realise the truth of 1. So, his meaning in 2 is that it is intrinsic to the nature of 13 year olds that they all realise the truth of 1. That interpretation works best for the logic of GT's argument by far.

If GT is only claiming that some thirteen year olds realise the truth of 1, and that others do not, then, even if his analogy with Russian roulette is good, it will not suffice to guarantee the conclusion. In that case, there will be many instances where 13 year olds do not in fact realise the truth of 1 and, thus, even when drunk and dressed in skimpy clothing, could not be blamed for 'pulling the trigger', as it were.

So, to summarise, if we interpret 1 the way I have suggested then GT's argument is logically stronger but the premise is implausible. If we interpret 1 any other way then your conclusion dos not follow from your premises, so your argument fails logically.

So, one might ask why my interpretation of 2 is implausible. Well, a 13 year old is not de facto entirely capable of realising the truth of 1. 13 year olds (and perhaps even fully mature adults) are only contingently capable of realising 1. In order for a 13 year old to realise 1 they require the appropriate education. They must have been properly informed, by people who they trust and believe, about the truth of 1.

Secondly, as another logical point about this premise, even if we were to assume that all thirteen year olds do in fact get properly informed about the truth of 1, that fact would not guarantee that all thirteen year olds are properly capable of applying that realisation in all situations. For example, it might be the case that thirteen year olds clearly realise the truth of 1 and from that also realise that they should not allow themselves to become intoxicated while wearing skimpy clothing in the presence of strangers. However, they might not necessarily realise that the truth of 1 can, unfortunately, apply even in situations with people that they trust, such as their high school friends and acquaintances (which seems to be the relevant example in this case). I think most people would generally forgive 13 year olds for thinking that they were safe with the friends and acquaintances. Thus, even if we take GT's claim to be in fact true despite it not being necessarily true, his conclusion could still not follow.


But how strong does GT's argument need to be?

Maybe someone might think that GT doesn't really want to say that all drunken and intoxicated 13 year old girls are at fault when they are raped. Perhaps GT does not intend that his reasoning should be deductive; he does not want the truth of his premises to logically guarantee the truth of his conclusion. Maybe GT only wants to make the claim that it is sometimes their fault. There are two points that should be made in response to this sort of worry.

The problem with that suggestion is that GT's conclusion is something which fits into the category of normative moral reasoning. Normative moral reasons are generally cashed out in terms of principles. Principles are acceptable if and only if there are no exceptions to them insofar as their criteria are met. If there are exceptions, and the conditions in which the principle is supposed to apply have all been met, then we say that the principle is in fact false. In situations where someone demands that we adhere to a false principle they are usually accused of applying an arbitrary rule. So if his argument is not deductive GT must accept either that his principle is arbitrary or he must supply us with more detail regarding the conditions that need to be met before 2 applies.

Still, perhaps one might worry that GT will actually supply us with some particular criteria to enhance 2. Perhaps there will be some relevant subset of thirteen year old girls which GT wishes to refer to and he does have a real principle in mind. However, even if this is the case it will not be sufficient for his argument to go through. The next part of my argument, the logical critique, demonstrates that GT seems to have entirely failed to grasp the way in which 'fault' is assigned in cases of rape. It is almost as if he does not understand what the meaning of 'rape' is. As such, even if he was intending to supply a more subtle principle for distinguishing the relevant targets of 2, the analogical link to the conclusion of the argument is still a total logical failure which renders the whole argument thoroughly worthless. It is to that point that this post now turns.


Explaining the total logical failure of GT's analogy.

Without 3, the truth of 1, 2 and 4, seem to fail to guarantee the truth of GT's conclusion. But 3 is an analogy and as such relies on its own sub argument which must be implicit within GT's main argument. This sub argument seems to fail logically. The reason is that there is a relevant disanalogy with the Russian roulette analogy. The sub argument might look something like this:

A. Playing Russian roulette involves risk because it might result in your death.

B. A young girl getting intoxicated and wearing skimpy clothing involves risk because she might be raped.

Therefore,

Conclusion: For young girls getting intoxicated and wearing skimpy clothing is like playing Russian roulette.

There are several points that can be made which notably do not feature in the argument above. Not only do they not feature, but it is far from obvious that they could be made to feature in any way in that argument without creating absurdity. In Russian roulette the person puts the gun to their own head and pulls the trigger. Pulling the trigger of a gun, if there is a bullet in the chamber, is a direct cause of the bullet being fired. If they pull the trigger, with a round in the chamber, then it does look like they really are responsible for shooting themselves. Hence the prima facie plausibility of 4. The gun does not have any free will. It does not choose whether or not there is a bullet in the chamber. It does not choose whether or not the bullet will go off. That only happens because the operator pulls the trigger. So, there is no intervening agency between the action of the person pulling the trigger and their resulting death. The argument fails to account for the relevant point that a rapist is not like a gun. Moreover, it is not the alcohol or the skimpy clothes that rape thirteen year old girls.

In contrast to guns, alcohol, and skimpy clothing, rapists have free will. There is a choice there for them about whether or not they will rape this drunk person in a skimpy outfit. They can choose not to do it. It is important to note that this means that the causal process is different in the case of rape than in the case of Russian roulette. The pulling of the trigger in the previous example inevitably leads to the firing of the bullet. Moreover, it is an action that is taken exclusively by the person playing the game. By contrast, as noted, the drinking of alcohol and wearing of skimpy clothing does not inevitably lead to rape. Moreover, the person who drinks alcohol and wears skimpy clothes does not rape themselves. This is precisely because the rapist has a choice and is responsible for his actions. Thus, to say that it was the fault of the person who was drunk and wearing skimpy clothing is to deny the free will, agency, and responsibility of the rapist.

Perhaps GT wants to suggest that people who rape are somehow less than human, and I might not strongly disagree with him on that point. But nonetheless the default assumption in society is that men do have a choice and can be morally accountable for their actions. As long as that assumption can be maintained then there is no basis for the claim that raping a woman is made excusable by her being drunk or dressed in skimpy clothing. In fact, whether she is drunk, or dressed in skimpy clothing for that matter, is irrelevant to whether or not raping her is excusable. She could be intoxicated to unconsciousness and totally naked in a public place and it still would not be her 'fault' that she was raped. Rape is not acceptable in any circumstances, and, in virtue of the rapist's choice to commit that act, it is always the rapists fault. Rape only happens because the rapist chooses to take advantage of her drunken, skimpily dressed, state, and rape her. That is none of her doing.

*An argument can fail logically, materially, or both logically and materially. Logical failure implies that the truth of the premises do not give enough support to the conclusion of the argument in order for the argument to be good. Yet an argument can be logically sound, which is to say that the truth of the premises guarantee the truth of the conclusion, and still be bad because it fails materially. Material failure happens when important premises of the argument turn out to be false.

In conclusion to my argument then, GT's argument borders on totally ridiculous. Either he is trolling and just wants to get a rise out of people or he is so utterly morally bankrupt that he doesn't deserve any attention from anyone here. Either way, the conclusion is the same, everyone here will be better off after they put GT on their ignore list.

Note: I'm sure CCS, p01s0n et al. will immediately pounce on this post and be all like "sperg sperg sperg derp derp." In preemptory response: IDGAF. I wrote this, admittedly ridiculously long, analysis of GT's argument because it expresses a point of view which I find sufficiently ugly that there is good reason for me to deconstruct it to absurdity. It doesn't really cost me anything much to do this other than time, and I enjoy logical argumentation anyway, so don't assume I'm writing this because I'm all mad or something. The actual response on my part is more like disdain. The purpose of this post is to convince others that their response to GT should also be disdain. As such it is not really directed at GT, but rather at other people; perhaps it is worthwhile to put GT on your ignore lists.

TL;DR: GT's miserable excuse for an argument is miserable. It fails in almost every way that it is possible for an argument to fail. On analysis, there isn't even really a point there for him to make and he would probably benefit from attending a stage one critical thinking course at university.

TL;DR: TL;DR: GT is a either a fucking idiot or a worthless troll. Either way, we should all add him to our ignore lists.

[Ab]

[Trigger]

[chubby]

i think i can manage disdain.

[Waldo]

anyone know where i can buy a roast buster t-shirt from?

[Lightspeed]

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Waldo

anyone know where i can buy a roast buster t-shirt from?

try Mr. Vintage...

[Trigger]

[pxpx]

Usually cant stand columns from this particular writer, but this one is worth a read: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/...ectid=11153649

[Rince]

Originally Posted by Nothing

debate

nice....

[Nothing]

Relevant?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnXtGINeDK0

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Note: I'm sure CCS, p01s0n et al. will immediately pounce on this post and be all like "sperg sperg sperg derp derp."

Lol, you're such a fucking dickpiece, dude. I haven't even posted in this thread til now, why the fuck are you even bringing me up? You gotta get over me.

[Nothing]

Don't assume it was about you personally CCS. You're not that important. You're just a really good example of a range of people that post the kind of douchey thing that you typically post. Perhaps you would've realised that if you'd paid attention to the fact that I also mentioned p01s0n and had an et al. in there. But then I guess you might not know what et al. means.

[Lightspeed]

CCS isn't a bully like the Roast Busters crew aren't rapists.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

Don't assume it was about you personally CCS. You're not that important. You're just a really good example of a range of people that post the kind of douchey thing that you typically post. Perhaps you would've realised that if you'd paid attention to the fact that I also mentioned p01s0n and had an et al. in there. But then I guess you might not know what et al. means.

p01s0n hasn't posted here either. Don't hide behind "Oh it was just a list of examples!" Fuck you're a tool. "Waah, people like ccs and p01s0n et al are always picking on me! Waaah!" Maybe you should fuck off to The Standard where you might appreciate their echo chamber more?

[Nothing]

Love you too bro.

[CCS]

"Somebody will probably attack me for making this post. Life is so unfair and people are so mean to me. I need to work on furthering my victim complex."

[Lightspeed]

See what what I mean?

[Nothing]

CCS: Livin' up to expectations since who knows when.

[Trigger]

hey sweet another thread where CCS gets into 1v1 arguments
I was done reading it anyway

[aR Que]

In all fairness, he didn't actually start it.

[Nothing]

Well that depends on how far back you go. But I do take his point. It really would have been better if I hadn't made any mention of him, or p01s0n for that matter, in my post.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Trigger

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/11/07...rape-inaction/

At 12.57pm today I was contacted by Campbell Moore from NZ Police Public Affairs threatening me with 6months imprisonment and $5000 fine for parodying their Roast Buster Rape inaction.

Boy the police seem to be able to act quickly SOMETIMES eh?

[Trigger]

wow, that is amazingly shitty
great job NZ Police