Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1402141)

5/10/2023 1:33:00 PM

From: Wharf Rat

1 Recommendation

Recommended By
pocotrader

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1578515

from a poster on another thread....

We were listening to Stephanie Miller this morning and an attorney called about the classification of rape in a NY civil case, vs. an NY criminal case.
In a civil case penetration has to be with the penis to qualify as rape, otherwise, it is sexual assault.
In a criminal case penetration with anything qualifies the incident as rape.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1402141)	5/10/2023 4:39:20 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578515

BC, the distinction between rape, and sexual abuse that led to injury, makes no difference to me. In the "verdict form" that you posted, both actions lead to the same conclusion, namely the dollar figure that compensated Carroll for her ordeal. You seem to use the "logic" of Whoopie Goldberg when she defended Roman Polanski: "It wasn't rape-rape": Polanski was not guilty of 'rape-rape', says Whoopi Goldberg \| Roman Polanski \| The Guardian Tenchusatsu