It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


How did an Atlanta CEO end up dead at the hands of a New Jersey cop?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:15 PM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

First, I'd like to mention that it isn't clear who you are talking to, as you are quoting me and replying to "mordant1" and in the other thread, you were replying to me.

Oh? Then perhaps you should direct your speech to Mordant whom I was commenting to in the first place.

If that is the case, then please "reply" to him and not me. If you reply to me, I'm going to assume that you are talking to me. Furthermore, if you quote me and then direct your comment as a response to that quote, I'm going to assume that you want my input.


Then, I'd like to point out the difference between hitting on someone, and grabbing, molesting, groping or raping them. While I agree that unwanted touching should surely be illegal, speaking your mind or "asking them out" should not be. There is a huge difference there. One instance is only an act of nature and the other is violation or act of force, "force" being the key word here.

How many times have you, personally, been put through the ringer, lost your career, freedom, or life savings because you asked a woman out and showed interest?

Well, I have never had my life changed because I follow the rules, even if I don't agree with them. However, in my military career, I have had to initiate punishment for soldiers who did nothing wrong. Some of these soldiers accidently said the word "girl" in front of a female, not even directed at her. In one instance, I had to initiate UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) simply because this soldier was over heard telling his friend that he had a crush on a female soldier.

What's crazy about this, is that I never really worked around females in my entire time in the army. So, what little contact we did have with females, almost always turned bad with my soldiers and my soldiers weren't bad men at all, they were simply being human... alive.

You see, in the societal microcosm of the military, male soldiers literally have to walk on egg-shells around women. There are many words that you can't say, such as girl or woman. You can't talk about the opposite sex in most cases, such as your wife or daughter. You can't address a guy without addressing the woman too. You can't discipline a female unless you discipline everyone for the female's mistakes. You can't yell at females or any such thing. You are basically not allowed to train them, yet you are supposed to respect them the same. You are supposed to treat them the same in other instances.

In the military, women don't have it nearly as hard, nor do they have to live up to the same standards and to top it all off, they get paid more (by at least a few hundred dollars). In light of all this, you are supposed to look at and otherwise treat them the same. Now I know that many women don't want this to be the case and there are many women capable of living up to the same standards, but it is because of the relatively few women who wield the sexual harassment accusations like a weapon.

When women in the military are prevented from the getting the training they need to stay alive or for their fellow soldiers to stay alive, then you have a real problem. Just look at what happened in Iraq, back in 2003 with Jessica Lynch. Jessica Lynch was captured only because she didn't receive the proper training. It wasn't her fault. In fact, Jessica's fellow soldiers died because of this sexual harassment craze.

Just to be clear, I want to reiterate that this is not because of women as a whole, rather it's because sexual harassment is being taken out of hand and the way that many women use it as a weapon. I'm not saying that women are any less or any more valuable than men, only that they are treated differently.

This whole sexual harassment craze is absolutely crazy. It actually hinders productivity because not only does it knock moral a few pegs lower, but it also makes people worry. Because they are walking on egg shells, they can't focus on what really matters, their work.

If someone looks at me like they want to hump my leg, then so be it. Even if I take offense to it, there is not much I can do, and rightly so, because that is human nature. However, if someone stares at a pretty girl, it could literally ruin their life and that shouldn't happen. Again, sexual attraction is human nature and if we didn't hit on those we are attracted to, then our species would never procreate.

People just have to accept the fact that people are attracted to others. It's how humans and other animals procreate. It is actually hard-wired in our brains and there is nothing we can do about it. If you don't like it, stay home.

You have to break this down to it's lowest common denominator and that is force. Who is the initiator of force? Is it the person who comments on your attractiveness? Or is the female who ruins one's life for doing such a thing? I would definitely say the latter. However, if someone touches someone else, then it is they who are initiating force.

If I hit on you and you don't like it, you can simply walk away and you are not any worse off then before I hit on you. If you don't like it, then so what? I don't like the color purple but I have no grounds from prosecuting everyone who comes into my view with something of that color. I just have to accept the fact that some people do like purple and if I'm really that bothered by it, then I can simply leave or stay home in the first place. I should not have the right to prevent people from wearing. Now substitute the color purple with attraction and act of wearing that color with expression.

Now if someone comes up to me with a purple marker and writes on my arm, then they are clearly initiating force here. This would be the same as someone coming up to me and grabbing my butt.

Do you understand that? There is a huge difference between hitting on someone and touching them, though according to the law, they are both pretty much the same thing, as far as sexual harassment is concerned. This is ridiculous.

I'll say this again because I think it is pertinent: If you don't want people hitting on you, don't go out in public. It is human nature for people to be attracted to others. This sexual harassment craze that we have been on lately is getting too far out of hand. Now, you can't even approach a woman without being terrified of being accused of sexual harassment. It's as if we have to pretend that men aren't attracted to women because if you don't or are not good at pretending, you can be accused of sexual harassment and once accused, you are pretty much guilty until you can prove your innocence and it isn't easy to prove a negative.

The reason that I use women against men when I speak of sexual harassment, is because most cases of accused sexual harassment are women against men and an even higher percentage that are held liable are accusations made by women, against men. It doesn't really work when men accuse women and the burden of proof is actually on the man, in both instances.


News flash homes, an attractive female who walks past a bunch of nasty semi retarded rednecks leering like they want to hump her feels just as creeped out. The fact that the nasty rednecks have an outie and the female has an innie does not make the feeling of revulsion any less. If you are arguing that women should deal with it because it is natural, (and most of us do, btw) then men should too. You aren't more delicate and vulnerable, suck it up.

In my hotdog comment, I was only commenting on the way they stare at me, not that they shouldn't be able to do it. So what if a female gets creeped out from someone being attracted to her? She has the option to leave, ignore it or to simply turn them down, just as I have the option to do the same. I never once said that gay men shouldn't have the right to stare or even hit on me. Your comparison with men and women is completely irrelevant.

With that being said, if men and women were having public sex in parks where children congregate, then my comments would be directed towards them. In reality though, it is usually gay men who cruise public parks and thus my comment is directed at them. To me, it makes no different whether you are two males, two females or any combination therefore, you shouldn't be having public sex in an area where children congregate.

Well perhaps men and women alike could petition the government for warning signs. "*WARNING* Horny humans you will find repulsive ahead," and perhaps they could just be placed in all public areas. Or, (and this might save tax dollars) perhaps we can just accept that when you are in public, you expose yourself to the possibility of unwanted attention. And, as long as that attention does not cross a certain threshold, there isn't anything to be done about it.

There is a huge difference between hitting on someone and having public sex. My comment about warning signs, has to with public sex in front of my children, not people hitting on each other. You do see the difference between the two actions, right?

To hit on someone in a public park is one thing, to have group sex in plain view of children is something else entirely. I don't need public signs to warn me about people hitting on me, rather I need them to warn me about people exposing my children to sex acts.

Furthermore, I don't agree with putting them up in all public areas, as I shouldn't have to keep my kids from those areas because people choose to expose their sex to the public. Instead, if they really must, they should designate one park or even designate a private area.


Continued Below...

posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:17 PM

...Continued from Top

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

You seem to not be seeing the difference between hitting on someone, groping them, or having sex in the open. While I'm not necessarily against sex in the open (in all cases), I am against it in public places where my children congregate. I should not have to worry about my children being psychologically damaged, just by bringing them to a public park.

While my main argument is against sexual harassment accusations against men who simply approach women, which does happen and often, I also don't see a simple cat-call as harassment either.

The definition of harassment is as follows:

  • a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented; "so great was his harassment that he wanted to destroy his tormentors"

  • the act of tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism

    Source: Google Define

    When you add sexual to that, it should be the same definition, only with sexual intent. A simple cat-call or a guy commenting on beauty does not and should not fall into this category. If you pass a group of guys on the street, A-holes or not, it isn't harassment if they are being a-holes. If they follow you and continue to be a-holes, then they are harassing you. On the same note, if a guy simply approaches you because he likes you, it is not sexual harassment, though men are being prosecuted for sexual harassment for both of those incidents and that is wrong.

    Yeah whatever. Like I said, I have never filed a harassment charge. But 5 separate times in my life, some idiot has felt they had the right to grab a handful of my butt. Not to mention the untold numbers of just flat out nasty sexual comments from a guy or pack of guys, when I am just walking. (Either when they are standing in a herd somewhere on a city street, or driving by in a car) And dont blame my clothes either. I am always covered. I never wear heels and skirts, I am jeans and T shirt kinda girl, and I dont pack on the makeup either.

    Again, grabbing your butt and whistling at you (or other cat-calls) are two completely different things. While one initiates force against you, the other does not. One of them doesn't hurt you, while the other one does. With cat calls, you have the option to ignore, walk away or refute and this won't harm you in any way, shape or form. With that being said, my argument about sexual harassment is more against guys who respectfully approach women... and then loose their livelihoods because of it. It does happen. It has now become illegal for men to approach women, though only if the women decides it should be. This is nonsense.

    Dont tell me jack anything about how all these poor guys are just expressing their genuine interest and asking me for a date in the most respectful way.

    Nobody should be forced to show you respect. It should be their liberty to do whatever they want, as long as they aren't impeding on your liberties. So what if you don't like it? I don't like purple as a color, that doesn't mean that I should be able to exert force against those who do like. However, when these guys do initiate force, such as touching you, then you should be able to apply force back, however just calling names, whistling or other cat calls does not impede a single liberty of yours. If they fallow you and not leave you alone, then it is real harassment.

    While I personally don't "cat-call", whistle or act disrespectful towards anyone, I don't agree that people should have their liberties curtailed because someone may not like something.

    You know you generally arent a complete idiot. But right now, you are just talking out of your butt. I dont hate all men for what a few idiots do, I get along with men great. But that doesnt mean some men aren't just flat out nasty idiots. That wanker boss I kicked in the chest? He also loved to go to Thailand and screw 9-12 year olds and bring back naked pictures of them to show at work. Yeah. Nice guy. He finally DID get fired because while he never laid a hand on me again, he eventually did some stupid crap to a woman who happened to be married to a big wig in the company. And she DID turn him in.

    I'm not talking out of my butt, you are not distinguishing between very different behaviors. People have the right to be idiots and just because we don't like it, doesn't mean that we should be able to impede on their liberty. Unless it is enacting force against us, we shouldn't concern ourselves with what others do. By a man commenting on how he you look, he should not be prosecuted, irregardless of whether you like it or not.

    This whole sexual harassment idea has been taken completely out of hand and instead of protecting people's liberty, it is depriving people of their liberties. It really is as simple as that. I have always said that liberty should be our birth right and liberties should extend all the way up until they impede on the liberties of someone else. If it doesn't affect your liberties, then it should be within their liberty. If it doesn't initiate force against you, then you should not be able to initiate force against them.

    I'm not saying that sexual harassment doesn't happen, rather I'm saying that it is taken way out of context and now men have to walk on egg-shells as just approaching a women, can now ruin a man's life.

    So really, get off your soap box. Real genuine cases of sexual harassment do occur. And MOST women do not go through the process of turning the guy in. MOST of them handle it on their own, or even leave the job because they dont want to deal with the harassment.

    I never once said that it doesn't happen or even that all women claim it. However, the sad fact is that many women claim harassment when they shouldn't be able to. The simple act of a man approaching a woman, or talking about one, does not constitute harassment, yet men are having their lives ruined because of it. Sadly, women can use this as an easy way to enrich theirselves or get back at their bosses, companies or men all together. While I agree than men should be held accountable when ever they really do harass women, and vice versa, I don't agree that women should be able to do it whenever a man approaches them or does something that a woman might not like.

    If I ever open a business, I would be extremely hesitant to hire women and not because they can't do the same work or because I think any less of them, rather because of the power they wield with all of these stupid sexual harassment shenanigans. There is no way that I would want to give any employee the power to take down my company or my life if they don't agree with something. What's even more sad, is that I would love to hire women as I think their contributions would be extremely valuable, however it's not worth the risk anymore. Just the cost of implementing a vastly different set of rules would offset that value. I don't want my employees to have to walk on egg-shells because their co-workers happen to be women and I certainly don't one of my employees to take down the company simply because she gets mad. It's just too much of a burden to have to deal with all of that, especially when it is mostly BS in the first place. It is the few who do it, that sour the whole shebang and it's society who give this small amount of women the power to do such a thing.

    It's also society who is being indoctrinated to believe that women should have every right to legally ruin the lives of men who do something that they don't agree with. Sad, sad I tell ya.


    Continued Below...

    [edit on 24-7-2010 by airspoon]

  • posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:18 PM

    ...Continued from Top

    reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

    AND people like you who often treat the female is if she is a pariah for defending herself using the law

    No, you have it wrong. If a man approaches a woman because he likes her, there is nothing to defend so "sicking" the law on him, is not defending yourself. If a women is fired for shoddy work and she thinks she has been wronged, it is not defending herself using the law when she ruins that company.

    The definition of defend is as follows:

    be on the defensive; act against an attack
    protect against a challenge or attack; "Hold that position behind the trees!"; "Hold the bridge against the enemy's attacks"

    Approaching a women, is not the same as attacking her. Sadly, if many women are approached by a man they like, they don't consider it to be harassment, though if they are approached by a man they don't like, they consider it to be harassment. Where is the logic behind that? There is none and it's a shame that logic is being left out of the equation as it is not the female who looses out in such instances.

    Should women be able to defend themselves when attacked? Absolutely, and even using the law, though sadly, they are often using the law to get at people who didn't attack them.

    Interestingly enough, I have never had anyone (male or female) suggest that the people I hit didnt deserve it completely.

    I don't disagree with responding to force with force. If a man puts his hands on you, you should have every right to respond with force, since he is the initiator. What I don't agree with, is the initiation of force, such as the case where men have their lives ruined because they used the wrong word or approached the wrong woman.

    So I guess justice should only be available to those big enough to deal it out themselves, is that what you are saying?

    That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that men should not be prosecuted for approaching women, which happens. I'm saying that men should not be held liable for harassment when they have not harassed, by the very definition of the word. If force is being applied against a woman, she should have every right to apply force back, even using the law, however women should not have the right to initiate force when force has not been used against them, such as the case when a man that they don't like approaches them or when they are disciplined in the military, even when they feel wronged by an employer who did not harass them in the first place.

    The word "harassment" has been completely taken out of context and now it seems to mean anything that a women doesn't like. If a man does something that a woman doesn't like, it is now considered harassment and that is just plain wrong, even by every stripe of the imagination.

    The moral of the story here, is that sexual harassment is being used as a weapon and is the accusations are being leveled against men who are doing nothing more than exerting their liberty, while not impeding the liberty of women. Sadly, it has now become sexual harassment to approach a woman... if the women does not like it. A woman should not be able to impede the liberties of a man, simply because she doesn't agree with what they are doing, period. Does real sexual harassment occur? It sure does, but that doesn't take away from the fact that men are being prosecuted for sexual harassment, who did not harass anyone at all, much less sexually. The term has morphed into something that now means doing anything a woman does not agree with.


    The End.

    [edit on 24-7-2010 by airspoon]

    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 03:20 PM
    reply to post by airspoon

    I worked on Johnston Atoll for 8 years.

    I lived, worked, ate, and socialized with the military. It is a remote location, so there was no leaving the island until your leave, so we all knew each other very well.

    I never heard of anyone on the island being run off for trumped up sexual harassment charges. Nor, did any of the military people I knew personally, who ranged from the base commander, a series of Colonels, to Captains, to grunts, and everything in between, complain about the abusive nature of the female soldiers, nor did any express any fear of being removed from their position for nothing.

    Maybe YOUR soldiers just dont have good leadership, and so they think that as long as the soldier has an "innie" its ok to treat them less professionally.

    I have never been in the military, but I am not ignorant of it. Nor do I buy your story of how hard it is, and how abused those poor innocent male soldiers are. I have no doubt that some few men have been wrongfully accused and terminated. I also have no doubt that for every innocent man, an equally innocent female has sucked up treatment that was unjust, unfair, and criminal.

    The strict policies you are sobbing over, were not put in place because princesses couldnt handle the day to day rough treatment of the military. They were implement after YEARS of egregious behavior on the part of male soldiers, of all ranks. From your branch,

    FORT LEONARD WOOD, Mo., April 20— When investigators arrested a Marine staff sergeant here last fall on charges of possessing child pornography, many of his fellow noncommissioned officers dismissed the incident as an isolated one involving a single bad marine.

    But their easy calm has been shattered in the last week or so with the arrival of military criminal investigators who are looking into accusations that at least 19 NCO's were involved in misconduct that included assaulting and sexually harassing young Marine trainees at this sprawling base.

    At the center of the inquiry is the marine arrested last fall, Staff Sgt. Howard W. Ross, 34, a divorced 16-year veteran of the corps who pleaded guilty at court-martial to having sexual intercourse with one female trainee, offering money to another to remove her clothes and dance for him, stealing from trainees and possessing child pornography. He has been sentenced to a year's confinement, has been reduced in rank to private and is likely to face additional charges.

    Three sergeants who worked with Sergeant Ross are awaiting trial on charges that include assault, sexually harassing female marines, buying alcohol for under-age marines and being drunk on duty. Three others have left the corps under a cloud, while at least 12 have been reassigned to desk duty pending the outcome of the investigation.

    If you dont want to follow orders, and rules, and you do want to cry over how hard it is, maybe the Marines arent for you.


    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:00 PM
    reply to post by airspoon

    Sounds like a legitimate case of self defense. Officer ID's himself to the man then tells him he is under arrest. Thats all he should have HAD to do. But the suspect forced his hand. One can easily judge another from his desktop. But to have been there is another matter in and of itself.

    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM
    reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

    No offense, but your incompetence with understanding this issue or what I'm saying, speaks volumes for your tendency to dismiss any objectivity on this issue, to only replace it with irrelevant rambling. I won't hold it against you, as we all are passionate about some things, which helps our emotions to defeat our reasoning.

    First, I'd like to point out that I'm an Army Paratrooper (retired), which takes the lead, often before the marines, but that's neither here nor there. Though I have worked and trained with the Marine Expeditionary Forces as well as jumped with Marine Force Recon, I am Army.

    Moving along, just because you were on an Island, working with the Navy, doesn't mean that you either know UCMJ or got a good experience of the military and their policies.

    You seem to be the only one suggesting that the policies in place for women are because they can't accomplish the job. In fact, if you would have read and comprehended my post, it would have been clear that I was saying the opposite. You are allowing your emotions, instead of logic, to dictate what your mind is reading and understanding.

    The sad fact of the matter, is that many women use sexual harassment allegations as a weapon or a tool in their tool-box to get ahead. Furthermore, the system is set up to allow them to do it. If you can grasp the basic meaning of the word "harassment", you would obviously know that the current sexual harassment is being taken way out of hand. It is not harassment to approach a female because you like her, though it sure is treated as such and ignorant minds can't differentiate between the two, most likely because they disallow logic to dictate their conclusions. Instead, it's much easier to just accept things the way they are, just as we were told. It's kind of sad, as critical self thinking skills in the average person have been depleted to an extent that we accept such ridiculous policies as not only righteous, but also fair.

    I have no doubt in my mind why it is that the government has such strict policies surrounding females. They don't want to be sued and real sexual harassment cases look bad. Policy makers understand that women use the accusations as a weapon and so to combat this, they set rules that make it more difficult for them to twist and turn something into something else that it is not. It is the men who are now getting in trouble for what should otherwise be normal behavior but because men can't sue for their mistreatment nor does it deflect from their image, it doesn't affect the government at all, besides moral. The squeaky wheel gets the oil, though that certainly doesn't mean that it deserves it.

    How does this have any practical repercussions, you may ask? Well, take for instance the fact that many male soldiers don't respect their female superiors. In the military, this can have dire consequences. The respect is lost due to several reasons that we will talk about. A lot of the cohesion in the military comes from being put through the same hardships. Another aspect of unit cohesion is that you can trust the wo/man to your right and to your left. You have trained with them and you have been through the same hell, yet you both emerge on the other side together. You know that they are just as capable as you. With members of your unit who have not had to endure the same training or achieve the same success in their training, you have no idea whether this person is going to be a liability in combat or whether this person can pull their own weight. You have no idea whether you can rely on this person's expertise and often, you can't, such is the case with Jessica Lynch for one example out of many. In the military, you should be able to entrust that your superiors have weeded out the weak, though this isn't the case now.

    This doesn't mean that the female is incapable, rather it means that they haven't received the same training and experience. It means that they haven't been put to the test and came out on the other side victorious.

    I don't know how many times that I have heard soldiers second guess the orders of a "leg" (non-airborne personnel). This is the same principal.

    With paratroopers (airborne), it's a little different, as both male and females have to live up to the same standard. Why? Because it is a matter of life and death. Women have to live up to the same "man standards" because if they don't, they could very well die. Should the same notion not apply to the rest of the military? It would appear that the lives of soldiers aren't nearly as important as the feelings and vindictiveness of a few females, though in reality, it only means that the lives of soldiers aren't worth the money that the government would lose if sued and aren't worth the tarnish to the image.

    The army has a policy where women can't join most combat-arms jobs. This is done for the very reasons stated above. It's not because all women couldn't handle the training or missions, rather it's because you would have to introduce those double standards and egg-shell walking policies into the ranks. This would effectively kill our military effectiveness. In this day in age, when a supply unit is at just as much risk as an infantry unit, you would think that this same logical reasoning would now apply everywhere in the army. The policies have not yet been updated to meet the reality of the situation and lives have been lost because of it. Moral has been lost because of it. I'm not holding my tongue that it will ever change, as public pressure will force it to remain. The same public that lacks critical self thinking skills in other areas as well. Political correctness has done a lot of damage.

    Again, this isn't because of females as a whole, rather it's because some females wield the sexual harassment accusations as a weapon. Ultimately, it's because the people allow them to do it by not using logic or reason in deciding what's harassment and what isn't harassment.

    This really has nothing to do with the real bonified harassment cases, as I'm not denying that it happens. It certainly happens from both sides, though only pursued for one. This has everything to do with what people perceive to be sexual harassment and the women who use this false perception for their own gains or agenda. They aren't cracking down so hard because people have harassed others in the past, as those people will harass anyway, rather they are doing it as a way to prevent women from being able to wield it as a weapon. Sexual harassment is far too damaging to their image, so TPTB would much rather punish men for something that isn't harassment at all, while escaping false accusations by women, the real image killer. You can't stop auto theft by outlawing vehicles.


    [edit on 25-7-2010 by airspoon]

    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 04:55 PM
    reply to post by airspoon

    Lol, the Navy? Try Airforce and Army.

    This whole off topic rant began because of a comment I made to Mordant1. And you then jumped in to regale me with tales of evil women ruining the lives of poor innocent men with sexual harassment claims, and how because men and women are physically able to have sex, men should be allowed to approach women on the job for mating purposes.

    It wasnt about you in the first place. It was an off the cuff statement to a male whining about feeling sexually harassed by males.

    I really dont care how you feel about the law, or military procedures dealing with relationships in the ranks. Its their military, and if they want rules that say "zero tolerance" then so be it. Dont get your meat where you get your bread. Its a simple rule of thumb. Where we worked, if military and civilians married, one of them had to leave the island. Period. If a female got pregnant, she had to leave the island. Period. Those were the rules. If you didnt follow them, no one cared how good a person you were, you left.

    For someone with a career in the military, you sure dont seem to understand obedience to authority. If the rule is you dont flirt with women in the service and you speak, act, and deal with them in certain ways, thats the rule. Do it, or leave. Since when has the military ever been concerned with the feelings and romantic lives and opportunities of its property?

    Argue with yourself over it. And call me as ignorant as you like. I could really care less. I regret even making the statement. I wasnt trying to encourage more whining about what helpless victims men were. But thats what it turned into.

    Edit to add,

    You also keep saying "many women, most women, most sexual harassment suits are baseless," and while the emotions run high in your recounting of this grave injustice, you are skimpy on hard evidence.

    You even point out that part of the problem is MALE soldiers will not follow orders from their female officers out of a lack of respect, which bolsters the argument that the complaints are not baseless. But thats a male problem, not a female problem. No matter how much you try to turn it into one.

    [edit on 25-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

    [edit on 25-7-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:23 PM
    reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

    It's important to understand the difference between obeying a rule and agreeing with it. While I always obey the rules, I sometimes don't agree with them. By my stated actions of disciplining soldiers who did not follow the rules, it should have been clear.

    Also, I'd like to mention that I didn't call you ignorant, as I don't believe that you are. Reread that paragraph.

    Not only did I point out that MALE soldiers hesitate with orders from women, but I also pointed out that many paratroopers, both male and female, do the same thing with "legs" (non-airborne soldiers). It's not indicative of men only, or even women superiors only. It is a fact of life. It is a fundamental psychological fault of the human brain and/or nervous system. Would you hesitate to step on an aircraft with a person in the cockpit who has never flown before? It wouldn't be a problem on your part if you did, it would be the fault of the system (which ever system it is) that created such a situation.

    furthermore, whether there are real sexual harassment cases or not is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. The whole premise of my argument is that approaching a woman or saying a single word in front of a woman does not constitute harassment and that is a fact that I supported with a link to an online dictionary. Unless you believe that to be mistaken or the source wrong, then my supply of sources is intact and more than plentiful. If you don't agree, then I have yet to hear anything refuting the claim.

    Approaching a woman for dating purposes (or even lacking respect for the opposite sex) is not sexual harassment, just as approaching an automobile is not auto theft. No matter how you try to twist or turn it, the definition stands on its own two legs.

    As far as your comment to mordant1, you were mixing up your replies as you were quoting me, and replying to mordant1 in at least one case, while replying to me in another. While you may have had intent to reply to mordant, you actually replied to me. Go back and look it.


    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:26 PM
    this could be a nice example of the social divide, if this cop is punished but cops who kill poor people are not punished.

    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 05:31 PM

    Originally posted by mikelee
    reply to post by airspoon

    Sounds like a legitimate case of self defense. Officer ID's himself to the man then tells him he is under arrest. Thats all he should have HAD to do. But the suspect forced his hand. One can easily judge another from his desktop. But to have been there is another matter in and of itself.

    I agree with you, however I think the question here is how believable the cop's testimony actually is. When I first read this article, my initial reaction was that this cop was lying, however after careful analysis it didn't seem so far-fetched after all.

    Another poster did bring up a plausible scenario, that the offcier was actually there for sex and got angry when turned down. You know, the whole "I forgot a pair of handcuffs there" excuse.


    posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:21 PM

    Originally posted by airspoon
    The whole premise of my argument is that approaching a woman or saying a single word in front of a woman does not constitute harassment and that is a fact that I supported with a link to an online dictionary.

    In the civilian world, it is so uncommon for a man to be fired just for respectfully asking a female out, I have never personally ever seen it happen. Ever.

    In the military, and you should know this, if you are retired from the military, the definition of sexual harassment is whatever the military says it is. I never joined, but I know that much, having lived by their rules for so long. Its not the civilian world. You dont get to vote. The dictionary doesnt have the deciding word.

    Originally posted by airspoon
    Approaching a woman for dating purposes (or even lacking respect for the opposite sex) is not sexual harassment, just as approaching an automobile is not auto theft.

    If you are in a superior position to someone in a company, or in the military, depending on the RULES of that company or that branch of service, yes it is sexual harassment. This is because in contract law, there is something called coercion. If someone has power over another person, and can affect their paycheck, their promotions, or their physical well being, it places the person being solicited in an awkward position. If they refuse or rebuff their superior, they may quietly be denied promotions, ostensibly because of "poor performance." Many companies and the military have dealt with this by disallowing superiors to fish in the company pond for sex.

    The reason they chose this route is not because of many women making baseless claims. Its because many men did it, and a few of the women were able to gather enough evidence to prove their case in court, and win large settlements.

    Private companies, and the military, get to make their own rules about how their employees behave. Its simple. If the rule is no asking someone on a date, and you think you should be able to because God has made them reproductively viable to you, call upon God to smite the company lawyers who proposed that policy.

    If that fails, just dont ask people at work, (particularly those of a lower rank) out on dates.

    Besides, while it is customary in our culture for men to ask women out, it is also customary in our culture for women to signal interest to the man before he does so.

    She looked first at the nonverbal cues of females — who, many researchers have speculated, begin the process of courtship — and found that women exhibit some specific, repeated signals to let men know they’re interested.

    “Women use a variety of glancing behaviors, a variety of things that draw attention to their body, like primp or hair flip,” Moore said in a recent phone interview.

    She noted that the more cues a woman sends off, the more likely she is to be approached by her target. Moore’s subsequent research found that signaling interest was a better predictor of a woman being approached than her physical attractiveness. Moore summarized this finding in a literature review published earlier this year in the Journal of Sex Research: “[A] high-signaling woman of average attractiveness was much more likely to be approached than her low-signaling, beautiful counterpart.”

    Other articles I have seen are much more detailed in the specifics of head tilting, sideways glancing with a smile, etc. Some guys will persist in asking you out even when your body language is screaming "hell no." And, if you give them a brush off, "no, I have to clean the toilet tonight" (which should be a big clue, when a toilet is more important than a date) will persist in asking.

    Me? I just dont get my meat where I get my bread. Its an easy enough rule, I was taught that early on by my elders, and its a good way to stay out of trouble and out of the workplace gossip circuit. You just cant make a good argument that you have some god given right to ask people out at work. Unless you work for God, and its in the employee handbook that you do.

    posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:24 AM
    reply to post by airspoon

    Another poster did bring up a plausible scenario, that the officer was actually there for sex and got angry when turned down. You know, the whole "I forgot a pair of handcuffs there" excuse.

    I saw that and agree.

    posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:26 AM
    reply to post by mikelee

    I agree with that it could be plausible for sure but, I ain't convinced of that scenario. But who knows.....

    posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 03:41 AM
    after seeing his picture on the news article is blairing obvious that the CEO was gay. he just has that gay look. his family are just too blind and ignorant to see it so they want the officer lynched.

    posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:50 AM

    Originally posted by bismos
    after seeing his picture on the news article is blairing obvious that the CEO was gay. he just has that gay look. his family are just too blind and ignorant to see it so they want the officer lynched.

    I have to agree, and I have no 'gaydar' to speak of, other than having been in the arts.
    THe point of the thread is I think about the facts of the case and the facts are still somehat vague and likely unknowable as bias and suspicion on every side is overwhelming.
    That said, its sad that the kids lost a dad, a wife lost a husband, and all their fantasies of normalcy and it's intent to provide security, the shooter has to live with his actions and the point of the matter regarding civil behavior and the situation of self centered intentionally lewd conduct by an identifiable minority is lost in the cloud of self serving commentary having nothing of value to add to it.
    Bottom line? None of this had to happen and the proximate cause is the failure of some to keep their personal lives outside the scope of public view. S$%ing and F^*(ing in public is ann intentionally offensive political act, not an individual right to be protected.

    posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:27 AM

    Originally posted by MegaCurious
    It's really scary seeing that if there are no witnesses, the cops wouldn't even hesitate to kill a CEO.
    I would think that the CEO would be like the first person to survive a cop encounter!

    It shouldn't matter if he was a CEO or the QUEEN OF ENGLAND, if a police officer says stop or I will shoot you stop, police officers are on a knifes edge at the moment and they are slowly losing it through pressure and ego inflation.

    posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:16 AM
    reply to post by franspeakfree

    A toxicilogy report would be interesting, what with drug use being so common in so called deviant sexual behavior of any orientation.
    What would it take for the great majority here to 'beat it' in public or otherwise seek anonymous sexual liasons in public? Serious drug use is epidemic in the recreational sex culture.

    new topics

    top topics

    << 1  2  3   >>

    log in