Well I'll be damned. Never thought I'd see the day where an internet message board was comprised mainly of people with good, logical, and sensible moral values
- eichiefs9

Common (frank)ing sense.

that and as much as kane deserves innocent until proven guilty treatment, the woman has to be treated as honest person until proven otherwise.
- Tumbleweed

+1.

Common (frank)ing sense.
- Pecafan Fan

Yeah but common sense isn't so common. Especially on the 'ol interwebz

Yeah but common sense isn't so common. Especially on the 'ol interwebz
- eichiefs9

Sadly.

I guess i lost a bit of Credibility in my comments about Eckland when I spelled Kane as Cane.

I guess i lost a bit of Credibility in my comments about Eckland when I spelled Kane as Cane.

He's supposed to host the Cup tomorrow.

Sure hope I'm not stepping in a pile of poop with this but here goes

In some rape instances the woman has the personal responsibility for her own protection, just like a moral man has the same responsibility to protect those who can't protect themselves. There is a difference between blaming women and saying everybody (men and women) has a personal responsibility. Giving a woman drugs to remove her inhibitions is rape. A woman drinking too much and deciding the next day she made a mistake in some instances is not rape. That being said, a man has the personal responsibility to not take advantage of a clearly inhibited woman who can't decide for herself. There is a line that a man has to cross to rape a woman who says no or can't say no. But on the same token the woman has a responsibility to not remove her inhibitions from saying no. That isn't placing blame on either, merely saying that each of us is responsible for ourselves.

Sure hope I'm not stepping in a pile of poop with this but here goes

In some rape instances the woman has the personal responsibility for her own protection, just like a moral man has the same responsibility to protect those who can't protect themselves. There is a difference between blaming women and saying everybody (men and women) has a personal responsibility. Giving a woman drugs to remove her inhibitions is rape. A woman drinking too much and deciding the next day she made a mistake in some instances is not rape. That being said, a man has the personal responsibility to not take advantage of a clearly inhibited woman who can't decide for herself. There is a line that a man has to cross to rape a woman who says no or can't say no. But on the same token the woman has a responsibility to not remove her inhibitions from saying no. That isn't placing blame on either, merely saying that each of us is responsible for ourselves.
- uf1910

I understand where you are coming from , but here's where your logic falls apart: Personal responsibility and lack of judgement does not trump the law.

I might display a lack of sound judgement if I walk down the back alleys of a bad neighborhood by myself at night. But it still is a crime if someone shoots me in the head for the $20 in my wallet. I'd still be dead, and a dummy for having done so, but a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, a woman might display bad judgement by going home with a man she doesn't know and putting herself in a compromised situation, but if she is consent is not clearly given, then its sexual assault regardless of the circumstances leading up to the act. Her lack of good judgement doesn't mitigate the circumstance any more than his (Any celebrity with half a brain shouldn't be putting himself in this situation either.)

I understand where you are coming from , but here's where your logic falls apart: Personal responsibility and lack of judgement does not trump the law.

I might display a lack of sound judgement if I walk down the back alleys of a bad neighborhood by myself at night. But it still is a crime if someone shoots me in the head for the $20 in my wallet. I'd still be dead, and a dummy for having done so, but a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, a woman might display bad judgement by going home with a man she doesn't know and putting herself in a compromised situation, but if she is consent is not clearly given, then its sexual assault regardless of the circumstances leading up to the act. Her lack of good judgement doesn't mitigate the circumstance any more than his (Any celebrity with half a brain shouldn't be putting himself in this situation either.)
- Emperor Filonius

Agreed.

Prevention in general can be a better path than dealing with the consequences of a situation gone wrong.

At the same time, I think that one person’s poor or stupid decision making does not give another person the right to do something illegal.

I understand where you are coming from , but here's where your logic falls apart: Personal responsibility and lack of judgement does not trump the law.

I might display a lack of sound judgement if I walk down the back alleys of a bad neighborhood by myself at night. But it still is a crime if someone shoots me in the head for the $20 in my wallet. I'd still be dead, and a dummy for having done so, but a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, a woman might display bad judgement by going home with a man she doesn't know and putting herself in a compromised situation, but if she is consent is not clearly given, then its sexual assault regardless of the circumstances leading up to the act. Her lack of good judgement doesn't mitigate the circumstance any more than his (Any celebrity with half a brain shouldn't be putting himself in this situation either.)
- Emperor Filonius

But consent (or lack thereof) has to be defined which is what I was trying to say. There is a difference between a woman who can't give consent (or say no) due to current condition and a woman who in the moment in enjoying herself due to her current condition and then wakes up the next day and decides it was a mistake. A man can't be responsible for a woman's decision if in the moment the woman is making that decision. Whereas if the woman is so wasted she can't make that decision then the man is potentially raping the woman and thus should take responsibility for his actions.

Agreed.

Prevention in general can be a better path than dealing with the consequences of a situation gone wrong.

At the same time, I think that one person’s poor or stupid decision making does not give another person the right to do something illegal.
- Tumbleweed

How is the man supposed to know if what he is doing is illegal if in the moment the woman has removed her inhibitions from saying no and thus making it illegal? Like I stated, there is a difference between a man having sex with a woman who can't say no due to her inebriation and a woman who doesn't say no b/c her level of inebriation isn't as high as a woman passed out but enough that in the moment she doesn't say no.

like just about everyone else, you know nothing about the girl and 0% of the details of what happened that night.

stop being naive that this situation follows some cookie cutter made for tv scenario made up in in your head.
- Tumbleweed

http://chicago.cbslocal.c...-kane-is-not-your-friend/

Good article to read about your point.

It's pretty spot on about fans and defending a sports star

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/08/07/baffoe-patrick-kane-is-not-your-friend/

Good article to read about your point.

It's pretty spot on about fans and defending a sports star
- KINGS67

As far as fans defending a sports star yes, people are (frank)ing idiots.

The rest of the article is BS. He is just as bad as the people already blaming the girl. Just the opposite side of the spectrum.

But consent (or lack thereof) has to be defined which is what I was trying to say. There is a difference between a woman who can't give consent (or say no) due to current condition and a woman who in the moment in enjoying herself due to her current condition and then wakes up the next day and decides it was a mistake. A man can't be responsible for a woman's decision if in the moment the woman is making that decision. Whereas if the woman is so wasted she can't make that decision then the man is potentially raping the woman and thus should take responsibility for his actions.
- uf1910

There is somewhat of a gray area here and that's what causes issues. The way I look at it, when I as single (I'm married and thus don't have to worry about this foolishness anymore), if I was with a girl, and there was any doubt in my mind that she was sober enough to be OK with what was going on, that was a non starter for me. It just wasn't worth the risk. Getting laid is great, but if the primary reason you are getting laid is because the girl is so drunk that her inhibitions are lowered to the point that she's do something she ordinarily wouldn't with a guy she doesn't know, then as a guy, IMHO, you are putting yourself at a huge risk.

How is the man supposed to know if what he is doing is illegal if in the moment the woman has removed her inhibitions from saying no and thus making it illegal? Like I stated, there is a difference between a man having sex with a woman who can't say no due to her inebriation and a woman who doesn't say no b/c her level of inebriation isn't as high as a woman passed out but enough that in the moment she doesn't say no.
- uf1910

I think you make some valid points. To me, every situation is different and applying the basic principles of doing the right thing and using common sense is where I would start. Without getting into the details, there is a significant amount of grey area in applying those principles in the specific example you bring up.

What I had an issue with initially was people making general statements blaming women for being raped, exonerating rapists and calling women liars.

This is getting beyond the p.kane situation - which nobody here knows the details of.

Can the mods ban both mattstake and simplejack.

These 2 (frank)1ing idiots support a culture of blaming women for rape, believe women are liars and think rape is ok if the woman put herself in the situation.
- Tumbleweed

How dare u accuse me of thinking rape is okay. Threaten to ban me just for stating my opionion and twisting wat I said. Who the (frank) are u??

Tumbleweed u need to watch how u label people.

Tumbleweed u need to watch how u label people.
- SimpleJack

Actually, on re-reading your post – I apologize for the label. I hung my hat on a few key words and the general theme of the post.

I still think your post is extremely biased and full of just looking for excuses for Kane.

Nothing is known about the situation and any speculation like that just throws fuel on the fire.

I think you make some valid points. To me, every situation is different and applying the basic principles of doing the right thing and using common sense is where I would start. Without getting into the details, there is a significant amount of grey area in applying those principles in the specific example you bring up.

What I had an issue with initially was people making general statements blaming women for being raped, exonerating rapists and calling women liars.
- Tumbleweed

Agreed. Unfortunately common sense is becoming all to rare these days

There is somewhat of a gray area here and that's what causes issues. The way I look at it, when I as single (I'm married and thus don't have to worry about this foolishness anymore), if I was with a girl, and there was any doubt in my mind that she was sober enough to be OK with what was going on, that was a non starter for me. It just wasn't worth the risk. Getting laid is great, but if the primary reason you are getting laid is because the girl is so drunk that her inhibitions are lowered to the point that she's do something she ordinarily wouldn't with a guy she doesn't know, then as a guy, IMHO, you are putting yourself at a huge risk.
- Emperor Filonius

He's supposed to host the Cup tomorrow.
- FlamesareHot

sample cup...

Im free to form my own opinion of what happened. That is what i believe took place, not for certain, but thats my best guess.

Its harder to answer why he would have forcefully raped a girl in or near his own house, than why he wouldn't have. Not 100%, but im siding with his innocence for now.
- SimpleJack

First of all you don't need the modifier "forcefully". Rape is already forceful. It's redundant to say forcefully. It's like saying "brutally murdered".

You're absolutely right; you're free to form your own opinion about what happened, but when there are no substantive facts about the alleged incident yet it's kinda hard to draw any kind of informed conclusion other than those clouded by ignorance which by definition aren't informed.

How about he's a rich man who can buy his way out of almost anything? Everyone knows there are two justice systems in this country. One for people who can afford it and one for those who can't. He's a man, and women are almost never believed when it comes to things like this unless it was violent and he left physical marks. He can just say "hey she was there of her own free will!".

He also knows he can get away with it, because while it's not the same thing, he already got away with robbery. If that was you or me who repeatedly punched a cabbie in the face over $1.20 we'd have served a minimum of 3 and a half years which is the penalty in NYS. That doesn't include the theft of services or fourth degree criminal mischief charges. So yeah, it's not really that hard to imagine why he'd rape a woman at his house and think he could get away with it.

First of all you don't need the modifier "forcefully". Rape is already forceful. It's redundant to say forcefully. It's like saying "brutally murdered".

You're absolutely right; you're free to form your own opinion about what happened, but when there are no substantive facts about the alleged incident yet it's kinda hard to draw any kind of informed conclusion other than those clouded by ignorance which by definition aren't informed.

How about he's a rich man who can buy his way out of almost anything? Everyone knows there are two justice systems in this country. One for people who can afford it and one for those who can't. He's a man, and women are almost never believed when it comes to things like this unless it was violent and he left physical marks. He can just say "hey she was there of her own free will!".

He also knows he can get away with it, because while it's not the same thing, he already got away with robbery. If that was you or me who repeatedly punched a cabbie in the face over $1.20 we'd have served a minimum of 3 and a half years which is the penalty in NYS. That doesn't include the theft of services or fourth degree criminal mischief charges. So yeah, it's not really that hard to imagine why he'd rape a woman at his house and think he could get away with it.
- Wetbandit1

#Buffalolivesmatter

*cries for Cecil*