The problem is that technically child rape covers consenual act between teens if one is just over 18. I am saying we need better accepted terminology.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
This applies to the Epstein files, how, exactly? Do you think there were a lot of those gray areas in those cases? A lot of consensual sex between people with less than a year’s age difference?
The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don’t have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don’t automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn’t want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.
Yes, you keep repeating that, and you keep missing the point. Read what I’m saying properly this time:
Do you think that the problem with reporting about the Epstein cases is a matter of not having the proper word to describe the crimes that happened and the victims?
Like, do you think that “underage women” is a reasonable way to describe the victims in the Epstein cases? Not generally, like you keep waffling about, but in the Epstein cases?
Do you think that in the Epstein cases, not generally speaking, it’s likely that there was consensual sex between a 17,9 year old and a 18,1 year old or whatever the fuck fantasy scenario you keep concocting? Do you think that in the Epstein cases it’s justifiable to keep using “sex with a child” or “sex with underage women” instead of “rape” because there might have been consensual sex between two people barely a few months apart in age? I’ll repeat, everybody here except you is talking about the verified cases of grown men raping under-18 children documented in the Epstein files.
I added helpful bolding to the relevant parts to try and keep you on topic, which is rape of children by Epstein and people associated with him.
I see the problem here. Read the original post. Like click on the picture. The post is about journalist making up thier own terminology which in their opinion is to intentionally minimize the criminality of the actions. It is really complaining about the reporting, not the crimes themselves. It bigger than just the epstein files. And it is rampant in all reporting on rape cases.
So why do they do it? In large part, because of the lack of agreed upon terminology, they have to make up terms that are less serious to avoid getting sued for implying crimes that didn’t actually take place.
Do you need an image circling the second question? How does “on the epstien files” change the explicit question from what it says to be about are the people in the files guilty?
The problem is that technically child rape covers consenual act between teens if one is just over 18. I am saying we need better accepted terminology.
Take statutory rape, it doesn’t distinguish enough.
If some 30 year old person ties down a fighting 5 year old and… straight to the gallows. If a 18.5 year old has consenual sex with a 17.9 year old, the gallows seem a bit extreme. But they are both statutory rape technically. Better terminology would make it easier to assign even harsher penalties than are already assigned for the base case. And they could remove some of the wiggle room it gives judges.
This applies to the Epstein files, how, exactly? Do you think there were a lot of those gray areas in those cases? A lot of consensual sex between people with less than a year’s age difference?
The person was complaining specifically about the words used in the article and that the reporter made up thier own. I was saying it is understandable that the reporter do that since we don’t have naunced enough terminology for the crime. And I argued we really need to work on that to prevent people from not taking the crimes as seriously as they should. When rape includes a 17.9 year old and an 18.1 year old having consenual sex, then when people hear rape, they don’t automatically consider it vile and disturbing. So the word no longer carries the weight it should when it describes other types of rape. But since it could refer to so many things, a new reporter doesn’t want to use it at all so they can avoid being sued for defamation.
Yes, you keep repeating that, and you keep missing the point. Read what I’m saying properly this time:
Do you think that the problem with reporting about the Epstein cases is a matter of not having the proper word to describe the crimes that happened and the victims?
Like, do you think that “underage women” is a reasonable way to describe the victims in the Epstein cases? Not generally, like you keep waffling about, but in the Epstein cases?
Do you think that in the Epstein cases, not generally speaking, it’s likely that there was consensual sex between a 17,9 year old and a 18,1 year old or whatever the fuck fantasy scenario you keep concocting? Do you think that in the Epstein cases it’s justifiable to keep using “sex with a child” or “sex with underage women” instead of “rape” because there might have been consensual sex between two people barely a few months apart in age? I’ll repeat, everybody here except you is talking about the verified cases of grown men raping under-18 children documented in the Epstein files.
I added helpful bolding to the relevant parts to try and keep you on topic, which is rape of children by Epstein and people associated with him.
I see the problem here. Read the original post. Like click on the picture. The post is about journalist making up thier own terminology which in their opinion is to intentionally minimize the criminality of the actions. It is really complaining about the reporting, not the crimes themselves. It bigger than just the epstein files. And it is rampant in all reporting on rape cases.
So why do they do it? In large part, because of the lack of agreed upon terminology, they have to make up terms that are less serious to avoid getting sued for implying crimes that didn’t actually take place.
Do you need an image circling the second question? How does “on the epstien files” change the explicit question from what it says to be about are the people in the files guilty?
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Removed by mod