Soldato
Jack Green the sorta fella to watch "The implication" scene in Always Sunny and think it's a reasonable thing to do.
People need to understand "choice" and how that makes a big difference.
Car accident is not a decision taken by the person. Therefore walking away or not does not matter in your example.
Oh I understand choice, just can’t wrap my head around the choice you keep making to reaffirm your barmy opinion.
Merton While we are all socialized to desire success, we do not all have the same opportunities to become suc-Leave Harvey alone. He did nothing wrong he simply gave people a choice
People need to understand "coercion" and how that makes a big difference.People need to understand "choice" and how that makes a big difference.
Car accident is not a decision taken by the person. Therefore walking away or not does not matter in your example.
Weinstien was basically ambushing women and making it very clear that either they slept with him, or they would get a reputation as being hard to work with and would definitely never get a job on any film his company had anything to do with.Coercion or a transaction? If your doing x to get y or at the very least the promise of y is that not OK?
There's a fine line with this stuff and it's rarely as clear cut as is often portrayed.
Weinstien was basically ambushing women and making it very clear that either they slept with him, or they would get a reputation as being hard to work with and would definitely never get a job on any film his company had anything to do with.
That's not really a fine line, that's basically "you either sleep with me now, or I ruin your career and make it so you never get a job in the business again", and that was the "nicest" way he did it (the women he targeted were very deliberately put in a position where they were surprised and given no time to get over the shock).
The legal definition of rape (both in US and UK law) make absolutely no mention of holding someone against their will or use of force. It's entirely about consent, and it's worrying you don't know that.I don't see this as rape, rape is when you can't walk away and the person is held down by force.
The legal definition of rape (both in US and UK law) make absolutely no mention of holding someone against their will or use of force. It's entirely about consent, and it's worrying you don't know that.
Troll or not, you seem like an awful person.
You are incorrect on this count, the US law does mention the use of force. A lack of consent appears to be classed as Sexual assault.The legal definition of rape (both in US and UK law) make absolutely no mention of holding someone against their will or use of force. It's entirely about consent, and it's worrying you don't know that.
Troll or not, you seem like an awful person.
Thanks, that wasn't on the page I looked at.You are incorrect on this count, the US law does mention the use of force. A lack of consent appears to be classed as Sexual assault.
10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally
www.law.cornell.edu
Edit: Legal terms often mean very specific things when compared to day to day use.
Well that explains the court martial bit.Thanks, that wasn't on the page I looked at.
Edit: After a second look, the above legislation (Title 10) appears to relate specifically to rape within the US military, the broader definition and that used by the FBI focuses on consent.
Pretty sure half of Hollywood saw him coming.
I think probably the appeal court is right.
The Judge in Weinstein's case violated the rules of court in allowing the other women to speak regarding Weinstein's behaviour. That's probably the right thing to happen in a case like this, but that seems like something that should be decided by the law making branch of the state rather than a decision to be made by a single Judge.
some people are too scared to move or try and stop it.I don't see this as rape, rape is when you can't walk away and the person is held down by force.