It's in the link that was posted by Opinter.
I must apologize for the poor citation. I usually don't do that.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/02/06/120206fa_fact_parker#ixzz1pjd0L4Jg
My mistake, I hadn't noticed it was only page 1 of more. I have now read the whole thing. Ravi comes across as a horribly haughty, obviously intelligent and witty, but ultimately immature douchebag of the first degree. Still doesn't come across as the coldhearted murderer you are attempting to paint him as.
I've posted reasoning and facts, plus a link. I do this often? And what have you posted? Nothing. You haven't posted any sources. The link that was posted (well by Opinter) shows plenty of what Ravi said, and a lot of it was malicious. Please read the link I've posted.
Where is your evidence or facts? And you say "I do this often". I've consistently backed up my arguments on this website.
No, what you do is mostly repeat your opinion. I am not saying this because I don't agree with your position currently, but because I have observed you - ESPECIALLY in your "arguments" with chance. Part of the reason why it never goes anywhere is that you just repeat opinions, getting more and more outraged that they aren't accepted as facts. In this particular case, you claim Ravi intended "harm".
Read the source please. There was clear intent by Ravi to cause harm on Clementi who he described in rather derogatory terms (again in the link that was posted that you didn't look at). There is no middle ground here. There was clear intent. And Ravi wanted to cause harm on his roommate.
But the article says nothing of the sort, and even if it did, that's just one more opinion. What "harm" exactly? "Harm" is an extremely broad term. Physical harm? What specific harmful effect do you claim Ravi was maliciously aiming for? Did he hope Tyler would start crying and with his eyes blurred from tears trip and break a leg? Or have a stroke? Or - yunno - jump off a bridge? I am not asking this to be an idiot, but you keep repeating a legal term that has a huge variety of meanings, and it seems to me like you are hiding behind it to express outrage that isn't really thought out too well and has MUCH more to do with vengeance rather than justice. Is THAT how we prevent hate crimes? By going vicious bloodlust on anyone who does something against us?
The link doesn't defend Ravi. Did you read it? I doubt it. It has context of what he said. There is clear homophobia and malicious intent in what he said.
There is clear homophobia, but it's the type of homophobia born of ignorance - of having been born and raised in a conservative family and not having had much contact with gay people. It is in NO way the homophobia of religious fanatics. And no, there is no clear malicious intent. If there is, I will ask you for VERY specific quotes from this source or others, and I will gladly discuss them with you. As for the article not defending Ravi, now that I have read the whole thing, I see it is just trying to be as objective as possible. Here are examples of things said in HIS favor:
(Page 1)It became widely understood that a closeted student at Rutgers had committed suicide after video of him having sex with a man was secretly shot and posted online. In fact, there was no posting, no observed sex, and no closet.
(Page 3)When he finished reading, he said, “I’ve seen so much worse.” And he discerned a tonal difference between Ravi and his friends. “The stuff that Dharun says is understandable, in a sense. If you find you’re sharing a room with somebody gay, and you haven’t been raised in an open home, you’re going to say, ‘Oh my God, what am I going to do? He’s probably going to want me.’ But his friends are assholes.”
Picone imagined that, had he and Ravi become roommates, they might have become friends. But he acknowledged that to speak so generously of Ravi—to unsettle the portrait of him as the perpetrator of hate crimes—was unwelcome at Rutgers. “I wish the gay community wasn’t so angry—so angry. I’m all about forgive but don’t forget.” He added, “Dharun didn’t want Tyler to die.” Rather, he said, Ravi had probably wanted people to be amused by his actions—to “think of him as this bro.”
(Page 6)Ravi told police that, every time he spoke with Clementi, it was “short and brief. I figured, Oh, he was just a shy kid.” He added that Clementi “didn’t seem to have any friends.” Ravi does seem to have recognized Clementi’s good nature. Tam showed me messages that Ravi wrote on August 29th: “He’s mad nice and mad quiet,” and “I think my roommate likes his privacy so I’ve been out of my room.” And though Clementi was sometimes annoyed by Ravi’s mess—in one chat, he mentioned a yogurt container left out for days—he also detected thoughtfulness and intelligence beneath Ravi’s swagger.
(Page 6)“I would die if I was forced to always have people around me,” he told Cruz. “The first week here was so hard b/c of that and my roommie purposely left me alone.” Ravi, he noted, had been “very considerate and perceptive.”
(Page 8)It’s possible that he still thought of his Twitter audience as a group no larger than those followers. In truth, his audience could have included anyone who searched on Twitter for “Dharun.” Perhaps Ravi expected Clementi to read his tweet; or perhaps he didn’t bother to consider that he might. This issue may become important to a jury, given the seeming conflict between a charge of invasion of privacy and a charge of bias intimidation, both charges that Ravi faces. Spying is secret, and intimidation is not.
This is an interesting point btw, considering he was found guilty on both charges...
(Page 9)The psychologist Dan Olweus has provided the standard definition of bullying: “A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself.” Because Ravi was a teen-ager behaving brutishly, and because he used a computer, there’s a temptation to draw this case into discussions about cyberbullying; but a brief, furtive intrusion, coupled with a few tweets, may not be easy to align with harassment that occurs “repeatedly and over time.”
(Page 13)If prosecutors had been able to charge Ravi with shiftiness and bad faith—if the criminal law exactly reflected common moral judgments about kindness and reliability—then to convict him would be easy. The long indictment against Ravi can be seen as a kind of regretful commentary about the absence of such statutes. Similarly, the enduring false belief that Ravi was responsible for outing Tyler Clementi, and for putting a sex tape on the Internet, can be seen as a collective effort to balance a terrible event with a terrible cause.
Of course you are. And you're not objective at all. You haven't backed up anything you've said. The way he described Tyler was disgusting. He spoke admirably about a gay person he met during orientation... but when talking about Tyler he said things like this:
"Its the fags like this guy that just cause all sorts of trouble."
This just goes to show you didn't read the article and you're making assumptions. And you have not at any time during this thread backed your argument up with sources. And you're saying I posted a link supporting Ravi? You're kidding me right?
Your argument is based on silly premises.
But you see, that's the beauty of it - I am not making claims
I am stating the personal opinion that NO - Ravi was not intending HARM (which I really hope you'll be more specific about). That's how it feels to me. And if anything, this article
strengthened this view. YOU on the other hand are adamant and claim that you've provided EVIDENCE. Well, I have now read the article, and I saw no trace of that evidence. The quote you posted about the fags just now is not evidence. None of the quotes from Ravi are evidence of malicious harmful intent. If you insist they are, I will ask you to take one, dissect it and explain to me how it translates as that. To me all of them just show he was a bigoted asshole and had the exact same opinion 3/4ths of the world's male population has. Got anything else?
Because I got stuff like this - from YOUR link:
{Page 8)According to Wei, she and Ravi “saw Tyler and his friend, or whoever that was—their upper body.” She remembered that the two men were fully dressed, standing against the door. (Ravi later said that they had their shirts off.) “I couldn’t see any faces, and they were just what seemed to be kissing, and then, after literally two seconds, we just turned it off. And we were kind of both kind of in shock, because for me, anyway, I’ve never seen anything like that.” Ravi told police, “I just felt, like, really, like, really uncomfortable and, like, almost guilty that I saw it.” Wei recalled, “At first, we were both, like, ‘Oh, my gosh, we can’t tell anybody about this, we’re just going to pretend this never happened.’ ”
(Page 12Ten minutes later, Ravi wrote again, in a less weaselly way. This message is something that one wishes had been written three weeks before: “I’ve known you were gay and I have no problem with it. In fact one of my closest friends is gay and he and I have a very open relationship. I just suspected you were shy about it which is why I never broached the topic. I don’t want your freshman year to be ruined because of a petty misunderstanding, it’s adding to my guilt. You have a right to move if you wish but I don’t want you to feel pressured to without fully understanding the situation.”
Whether this last one is fake, or sincere, the fact is, those are NOT the actions of a malicious person seeking to do harm. If you see it differently, I need a better explanation as to why. In your own words, rather than with another link. I am not chance, so please don't argue with me like you do with chance
My problem is that I can way too easily see myself in Ravi in too many details. I like to think I'm not bigoted and that I would never do stuff like what he did, but I have done stupid shit, and I have tried covering my tracks, and I know what the reasoning behind it feels like, what thoughts cross your mind during. It's not malice. What it is, is not-thinking, going with it because you can, and then panic... None of these will bring Tyler back, and I read the description of his jump choking back tears, but I still say that to vilify Ravi to that extent is looking for Old Testament justice. It's especially hard to rise above being wronged, but I believe it's vital if we are to ever be accepted by society. In the end, even Tyler's parents could show compassion, so I think we should too.
[Tyler's parents] didn’t want to discuss the case, beyond saying that they were satisfied with the charges against Ravi. “What we want to see is justice,” Joseph Clementi said. “That doesn’t necessarily mean the punishment has to be harsh.”
All of it...
