It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police investigate shocking video of 17 drunken soldiers 'roasting' underage schoolgirl

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

You remind me & many others of the tyrants, who sexually abused that poor girl. You seem to support those thugs, who ruined her life. Shame on you, and people of your deplorable ilk.


[edit on 17-4-2009 by News And History]




posted on Apr, 17 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by News And History
 


You don't know me so don't even TRY to judge me. But I also don't condemn them or call them sexually abusive, or rapists, without ALL the facts. We don't know if she went willingly with them, or if it was HER idea to go back with all of them, or ANY other details about this.

Oh wait, let me guess, you think that any time something like this happens, it's the military brainwashing that causes it, and the teenager involved could NEVER have had anything to do with this, and CERTAINLY wasn't a willing participant, right?

When we know more than we do now, THEN I'll judge them, but until then innocent until proven guilty. I refuse to start screaming for their lynching until we know more details.



posted on Apr, 19 2009 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whitewave
 


Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that people are only allowed to have one partner at a time. Some people LIKE that kind of thing, and some people are open to that sort of thing. It's THEIR choice. Gee, I didn't think I'd have to explain that kind of thing.

Some people get their jollies killing other people, too. Maybe we could hook them up with all the people who are suicidal? A win/win situation for everyone, eh? What happens to society when you start moving the boundaries for acceptable human behavior further and further away from a general rule of decency? You get 17 drunken soldiers banging an inebriated 15 year old girl in their barracks.

Even if they DID ask for her ID what would that prove? If she was drinking she probably had a fake ID to get the alcohol, or she could have shown them a fake ID. I guess we all better get flashing neon signs you can't tamper with that show our ages as we walk around now to make sure everyone knows just how old we are.

How about we just recalibrate our moral compasses so that even if we don't have any respect for our "dates", we have a little SELF-respect?

I know it's old-fashioned and not politically correct to talk about morals, self-control, discipline, virtues, honor or any of those other unpopular concepts. The philosophy of "do what thou wilt" is perfectly justifiable if one has the emotional maturity of a poorly brought up teenager. Moral absolutes are required to avoid the shifting sands of situational ethics necessary for an easily guided populace of sheeple that we see so prevalent today.



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by whitewave
Some people get their jollies killing other people, too. Maybe we could hook them up with all the people who are suicidal? A win/win situation for everyone, eh? What happens to society when you start moving the boundaries for acceptable human behavior further and further away from a general rule of decency? You get 17 drunken soldiers banging an inebriated 15 year old girl in their barracks.


So now it's illegal to have more than one partner? Or to have group sex? Why don't we just pass laws regulating every single aspect of our lives so that we only have one partner, and no group sex. The ONLY portion of this that was illegal was the fact that she was underage, and I question whether they KNEW she was underage.



How about we just recalibrate our moral compasses so that even if we don't have any respect for our "dates", we have a little SELF-respect?

I know it's old-fashioned and not politically correct to talk about morals, self-control, discipline, virtues, honor or any of those other unpopular concepts. The philosophy of "do what thou wilt" is perfectly justifiable if one has the emotional maturity of a poorly brought up teenager. Moral absolutes are required to avoid the shifting sands of situational ethics necessary for an easily guided populace of sheeple that we see so prevalent today.


What a shock, you managed to bring up how everyone is just a sheeple and have no morals. Yes you're right, let's have moral absolutes, and nothing in between. Let's make anything but an absolute illegal, and add MORE laws, and make MORE things against the law. When guys look at underage girls, they might be having lustful thoughts, so lets put their eyes out. If a married man talks about another woman let's cut their tongues out. If he touches another woman we'll cut his hands off. Adultery? Jail or death, which do you like more? Where does it end, with Sharia Law? Back to the days of arranging marriages for underage kids? Where?

Who decides what's a moral absolute? You? The church that has pedophile priests as members? Christians that go to church on Sunday, and watch porn during the week? How do we have moral absolutes if we don't have people of UNQUESTIONABLE morals to decide them? Show me someone that has not compromised their morals at least once in their life, and I'll show you a liar.

Moral absolutes are impossible because your morals aren't MY morals. What you may think is wrong, I have no problem with. What I have a problem with, you may not think is wrong.

[edit on 4/20/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   
The article never claims that this was violent rape, and it sounds like it probably wasn't, but it was statutory rape, which is a crime, due to the girl's young age. The event is disgusting in any case.

What the heck do they mean by a 'roasting' sex session, anyway? It doesn't sound very good...



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DragonsDemesne
 


I would imagine it would a shortened version of "spit-roasting"...

I'm sure you can take it from there..



posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by whitewave
So now it's illegal to have more than one partner?Or to have group sex?


Um, where or when did I say it was illegal to have more than one partner or group sex?

Why don't we just pass laws regulating every single aspect of our lives so that we only have one partner, and no group sex.

If you feel strongly about it I suppose you could legislate for such. I prefer to educate rather than legislate.

The ONLY portion of this that was illegal was the fact that she was underage, and I question whether they KNEW she was underage.

I question whether they knew as well, Zaphod, however they did know that there were 17 of them, they knew they were drunk, they knew she had been drinking, they knew they weren't supposed to bring women onto the base without proper authorization.


What a shock, you managed to bring up how everyone is just a sheeple and have no morals.


Not exactly, my indignant friend. What I said was that without a firm basis for behavior (moral absolutes) then behavior can change (usually declines). Look around you. Things that we would never have tolerated 50 years ago (politically) are being accepted as inevitable today.

When guys look at underage girls, they might be having lustful thoughts, so lets put their eyes out. If a married man talks about another woman let's cut their tongues out. If he touches another woman we'll cut his hands off.

Seems a little extreme to me, Zaphod, but as you said, "What you may think is wrong, I have no problem with."

Adultery? Jail or death, which do you like more? Where does it end, with Sharia Law? Back to the days of arranging marriages for underage kids? Where?

Thank you for emphasizing my point about the necessity for moral guidelines. If there's no firm ground on which to stand politically, legally, or socially (as your example above shows), what do you think happens when there is no firm ground for a people morally?

Who decides what's a moral absolute?

I believe most cultures have decided the basic groundwork for moral absolutes. There are varying shades depending on the culture but most cultures, through millenia of observation of cause and effect, have determined that killing, stealing, promiscuity, etc. are not conducive to orderly societies.

Moral absolutes are impossible because your morals aren't MY morals. What you may think is wrong, I have no problem with. What I have a problem with, you may not think is wrong.

People who rape 11 month old babies think they should be allowed to indulge themselves and get away with it too. I met plenty of those when I worked the prison system. Their morals were not my morals and just because I had a problem with it, they didn't.

There needs to be a standard. There needs to be tolerance, forgiveness and willingness to cede certain minor points related to cultural differences but there DOES need to be a standard. For most people that standard is already in place and deep down, unless they're sociopathic, they know when they've crossed the line.

I can see from your passionate responses that I've upset you. This story isn't important enough to me personally to continue upsetting you so, with my above explanations, I hope I have appeased you enough to now excuse myself from this thread.

Have a lovely day all.
[edit on 4/20/2009 by Zaphod58]




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join