Downey just tweeted that he wants tobe a Hawkeye
- Thread starter edquinn06
- Start date
Intelligent response. It does not apply in this case, but it is an intelligent assessment of many situations.
The term 'revenge porn,' though frequently used, is somewhat misleading. Many perpetrators are not motivated by revenge or by any personal feelings toward the victim. A more accurate term is nonconsensual pornography (NCP), defined as the distribution of sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent. Even this is questionable as to how the term "distribution" applies.
Again, I was only acting on the assumption that she willingly let the recording happen and that he was just being a typical "dumb jock" and put it out for anyone to see. IF, it was done for "revenge" that is a completely different thing. For all the misconceptions, I am still against him doing it. I would just take it much more seriously if it was done for that reason.
Nope. I see a good thing going on the horizon with the guys we have and the ones we are looking at. No need to drop a turd in the punchbowl. I am all about wanting our guys to win but there is a line that does not need crossed. We have seen this before with other programs.
Sometimes while playing devil's advocate you say something stupid and just have to go with it. For example, the Don's PD3 vs DT assessment. That's fine, might as well go with it now, its good fun. But, MSU's take on revenge porn (the girl's fault because everyone is doing it) is pretty messed up.
Not sure how to respond to this. Did you mean you're? Also I simply quoted cybercivilrights.org definition of revenge porn.
Because people on here don't have the capability to use reading comprehension, I am digging a hole? How many people are saying that I said it was the girl's fault and am condoning revenge porn when I have SPECIFICALLY pointed out that I endorsed neither?
For the gazillionth time, the girl didn't deserve what happened. Downey is a POS for what he did. I just think she made an incredibly stupid decision and, in this case, it is one of the easily avoidable one's that makes me a lot less sympathetic.
To me, it's kind of like putting your head in the microwave when it is off. You have the right to do it and may even have thought it was cool at the time. Even still, It's not your fault if the microwave malfunctions and irradiates you. But, why in the hell were you dumb enough to put your head in the microwave in the 1st place?
I don't think the argument is about the criminality of filming it. It may or may not have been depending on the circumstances that it was filmed under. As someone posted above posting it against her wishes may be criminal - however, this is NOT the issue I take with your stance.
The issue is that making judgements about the girl is NOT RELEVANT. And whether it is your intent or not, it is taken as excusing or minimizing Downey's actions. Why are you bringing up the girl at all, unless to throw it out as an excuse or rationalization. Nobody on here was discussing the girl.
Almost friggin' deja vu with the recent Gilman discussion - although I even hesitate to put that comparison out there as it will be taken the wrong way. Almost NO ONE was blaming Gilman, or saying he was a racist, or even a malicious young man. But quickly the discussion pivots from a simple acknowledgement of an unfortunate use of language, to an argument about the offensiveness of the term. Meanwhile, ëven guys on the other side of fence are acknowledging that they wouldn't personally use that term in the presence of a Japanese-American. So, basically, it's an argument thrown out just to "excuse" the hometown boy - WHO DIDN'T EVEN NEED EXCUSING. He handled it great.
Bottom line is that you judging the victim here is an excuse for Downey. No other way to take it, it is just really difficult to believe that you threw that out there because your intent was to start a discussion about the morals of a girl whose name you don't even know.
This +1000.
There may be debate about how far reaching political correctness has become - and mostly about what is the true aim of certain agendas. I can certainly agree with this and these items should be up for debate.
But your statement is 100% on the mark.
I brought her into it because "her consent" is the whole reasoning behind whether or not his actions were wrong. My point was that her consenting to the video itself considerably changed how bad the act he did was. I never "excused" what he did and have repeatedly, right from the beginning, said he was a dick or worse for doing so.
However, I can see why you took what I said the way you did. I went into a topic that is something I had hammered into me while growing up. Simply put, I was taught, as I am sure most of you were, to use your brain. Assess a situation. If you can come up with a bunch of scenarios where what you are about to do can come back to bite you very hard in the rear end, don't do it. And believe me, I was far from perfect. I paid dearly for almost every stupid decision. To me, letting a guy record you doing that is dumb. Period. Letting someone record you doing something you wouldn't want someone else to see makes no sense to me.
Maybe that's the problem. You think you need to respond all the time. I'm not really interested.
I understand your rationale in the second paragraph and agree with it.
I disagree the stance you take that is bolded in the first paragraph. Vehemently.
I am sorry. I thought this was a conversation. Hard not to have one if you don't respond. Also, if you aren't really interested, why post in the first place?
I understand your point but I completely and very strongly disagree with this part.
Then I will add this to hopefully give more context to what I said. Her "consent" could honestly make his initial posting perfectly acceptable if she actually said please post the video. Take that final consent away and then her "consent" on the video itself determines, not only if it is illegal, but what level of crime it is.
Finally, basically if a guy steals a piece of bubble gum(not saying that is comparable to what happened) he is a thief just like someone that robs a bank. However, the guy that robs a bank used a gun, threatened everyone's life and stole thousands. What Downey did was flat out wrong. But, her amount of consent absolutely determines the level of wrongness.
Regardless of if the initial posting was with her consent, he took it down and then put it back up later just to spite her (allegedly). That has nothing to do with her and that is 100% on him. It isn't any "better" just because she may have initially consented to it
That part I completely agree with. If he did do it the 2nd time to spite her, it is absolutely a heinous act.
Except for those in Hollywood, I have never heard of a woman giving consent to having a private sex tape put on the internet for everyone including her family to see. That's contorting reality to make your point valid.
Excepting the word private(which to me really doesn't belong with sex tape) it is called voyeurism, actually. Happens quite often.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
So this is your logic:
If the girl consented to the sexual act and the filming, then there is nothing wrong with his actions even if the girl DID NOT consent to the video being posted online for anyone to see?
Your logic is f*cked.
Even if posting the video online is legal (which sounds like it is not), it's still a terrible and despicable thing to do on a moral basis.
You're arguing in a circle. You're contradicting yourself. You care about consent of the sex act and filming but you do not care about consent of the video being posted online.
Amazing. Another guy that can't read. I said what he did was wrong FROM THE BEGINNING and called it a dick move. I was simply saying the level of wrongness(there is such a thing) depends on the level of her consent involving all aspects.
Iowa has just passed a law criminalizing what PD2 did. It's harrassment. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=87&ba=HF526
It hasn't gone into effect yet, so no crime - not that it should matter.
It hasn't gone into effect yet, so no crime - not that it should matter.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
I can read and I've thread through all of your posts. However, people originally pointed out that Downey reposted the video to harass/provoke her. That's a pretty clear indication that she wasn't consenting to it being posted online.
Here is your first post regarding this: "Did she consent to the bj? If so, as long as he isn't profiting from the video, consent is meaningless."
You apparently are the one with reading comprehension issues, because you've backtracked and changed your stance multiple times within the last 3 pages of this thread.
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
In your original post you were saying that consent is meaningless for the video being posted online. Are you still standing by that opinion? Because you've altered your stance several times within this thread.
I just want to see if what some posters say is true. You have to have the last word. So if you respond then it means that you have to have the last word..
Her consent was meaningless in regards to his posting the video initially in regards to legality. What stance have I specifically altered?
A
anon_0pi0cv8t1ggvb
Guest
In your first post of this discussion you said: "Did she consent to the bj? If so, as long as he isn't profiting from the video, consent is meaningless." That pretty heavily implies that you meant he didn't need her consent to post the video online.
This was already after the fact that people had said that Downey posted the video a second time to harass/spite her (which clearly indicates she was not consenting to the video being shared online).
Later in the thread you said this:
"Then I will add this to hopefully give more context to what I said. Her "consent" could honestly make his initial posting perfectly acceptable if she actually said please post the video."
So you changed your stance on whether or not her giving consent to the video being posted on the internet matters. Originally you said it did not matter. Later in the thread you said it did. You're adding in minor details after the fact to sway the discussion in your defense such as: "Her consent was meaningless in regards to his posting the video initially in regards to legality."
Regardless of whether it was legal or illegal at the time that he did it, it doesn't change the fact that it's a detestable thing to do, and deserves no defending or criticizing of the victim's actions.
This was already after the fact that people had said that Downey posted the video a second time to harass/spite her (which clearly indicates she was not consenting to the video being shared online).
Later in the thread you said this:
"Then I will add this to hopefully give more context to what I said. Her "consent" could honestly make his initial posting perfectly acceptable if she actually said please post the video."
So you changed your stance on whether or not her giving consent to the video being posted on the internet matters. Originally you said it did not matter. Later in the thread you said it did. You're adding in minor details after the fact to sway the discussion in your defense such as: "Her consent was meaningless in regards to his posting the video initially in regards to legality."
Regardless of whether it was legal or illegal at the time that he did it, it doesn't change the fact that it's a detestable thing to do, and deserves no defending or criticizing of the victim's actions.
MSU 158 - Just so you know, I get what you are saying and I read what you said. A lesson for the future for you is when you don't clearly explain your thoughts on a touchy and sensitive and disgusting subject, people are going to misunderstand.
The other thing you should not do is make assumptions. All we know is they were intimate and he posted something that the girl did not want posted and then he reposted it. It is foolish to assume it was consensual. It is foolish to assume she was ok with the filming. It is foolish to assume she did something stupid and should learn from it. Who knows - she may have been fearing personal harm.
So maybe you have learned not to assume things and then make comments to distribute the blame in a situation that all of us agree is scumbaggish, at best.
Hopefully the girl has learned something. (be more selective- don't drink and hang out with certain people - look for cameras (or don't agree to cameras) when doing things you don't want your priest to know you are doing -are just a few that come to mind.
What a great learning experience this has been for all of us. Anyway, I get what you were trying to say.
The other thing you should not do is make assumptions. All we know is they were intimate and he posted something that the girl did not want posted and then he reposted it. It is foolish to assume it was consensual. It is foolish to assume she was ok with the filming. It is foolish to assume she did something stupid and should learn from it. Who knows - she may have been fearing personal harm.
So maybe you have learned not to assume things and then make comments to distribute the blame in a situation that all of us agree is scumbaggish, at best.
Hopefully the girl has learned something. (be more selective- don't drink and hang out with certain people - look for cameras (or don't agree to cameras) when doing things you don't want your priest to know you are doing -are just a few that come to mind.
What a great learning experience this has been for all of us. Anyway, I get what you were trying to say.
It is comical seeing the penn state trolls giving their take on a Downey transfer after their classless coach used Long for a national title. The only way i could see PD coming aboard would be with weekly drug/alcohol screens and no social media. I do believe TnT are the best chance at straightening him out.
The second semester would be
Lee
Glynn?
Lugo
Brandon
Kemdawg
Bull
Young
Wilke
PD
Stoll.
The odds of this not happening is greater than 83%
The second semester would be
Lee
Glynn?
Lugo
Brandon
Kemdawg
Bull
Young
Wilke
PD
Stoll.
The odds of this not happening is greater than 83%
First of all, that's a pretty salty group right there. Secondly, I highly commend the use of the ideal percentage. That was some excellent work and richly deserving of a tip of the cap.
Last edited:
Thank you....now I have to ask myself why I just wasted 20 minutes of my life reading all that?
Does anybody know the girl in question's Snapchat ID? Asking for a friend.
I heard he was tweetin or snapchattin or both about fighting MMA later this summer or fall so as usual this clown is all over the place with what he is going to do or in PD terminology "gun git in da ring n # sum trash wit my fist #baltstyle #BAMF Funky B"
If true I hope the Hawks pass the old man is a nut job and sadly the son has him as his role model.
