Advertisement
by Trumptonium1 » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:35 pm
by New Tryphalia » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:36 pm
Galloism wrote:Vassenor wrote:
So how does accepting the possibility that someone might have done a thing equal guilty until proven innocent?
If you believe in God, does that mean you accept the possibility of God or that you have full faith that God exists, and accept His existence as real?
If you believe Donald Trump, does that mean you accept the possibility that Donald Trump is telling the truth, or that you have full faith that he is telling the truth, and accept his word as truth?
If you believe in climate change, does that mean you accept the possibility of climate change, or that you have full faith that climate change is a real thing and accept it as a real event?
If you believe your spouse when he/she says he/she was working late, do you accept the possibility they were working late, or that you positively affirmatively accept they were working late and accept it as a real event?
by New Tryphalia » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:37 pm
Vassenor wrote:New Tryphalia wrote:
She said "believe." Belief isn't a skeptical, rational consideration or openness to something. It's a blind acceptance on faith, without any evidentiary support for such a conclusion whatsoever.
You mean like the belief that feminists want rape accused to be treated as guilty until proven innocent?
by New Tryphalia » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:40 pm
by Kaggeceria » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:50 pm
Galloism wrote:Kaggeceria wrote:
If this is the case then the only logical conclusion is the man she is accusing must be guilty.
It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.
You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.The court had previously ruled that when a defendant claimed the contact was consensual, it was up to the defendant to prove there was consent by a preponderance of the evidence. The rulings essentially made consent an affirmative defense to a rape charge, the way a killer can claim self-defense in a murder case.
But in a 6-3 opinion Thursday, the justices said those decisions wrongly interpreted U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Prosecutors must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and making a defendant prove that there was consent got that requirement backward, they said.
“Requiring a defendant to do more than raise a reasonable doubt is inconsistent with due-process principles,” Justice Debra Stephens wrote for the majority, saying it raises “a very real possibility of wrongful convictions.”
...
The Legislature changed the definition in 1975, removing the reference to consent and requiring prosecutors to prove “forcible compulsion” — force that overcomes resistance, or threats that put a person in fear of death or injury. The intent was to put the focus back on the actions of the defendant, Owens said.
“Placing the burden on the State to disprove consent wrongfully puts the victim’s actions and reputation on trial,” she wrote. “Not only does the majority’s decision invalidate years of work undertaken to properly refocus our rape law, but it also has serious implications for victims of an already underreported type of crime.”
Emily Cordo, former legal director of the Sexual Violence Law Center in Seattle, agreed.
“You are going to have decisions from jurors based on misperceptions about how victims should behave rather than based on what the defendant did,” she said. “Washington, like every other state, has a real problem getting actual rapists convicted. This makes it that much more difficult.”
But the majority said the use of force is an element of the crime: It can’t be true that a rape case involved both forcible compulsion and consent. For defendants to prove consent, they are also disproving forcible compulsion — which means the state has been requiring the defendant to prove they didn’t commit the crime, rather than requiring prosecutors to prove the defendant did.
The ruling came in the case of a boy identified only as W.R. Jr., who was convicted of second-degree rape in King County. He was awarded a new trial.
W.R. Jr.’s attorney, Gregory Link of the Washington Appellate Project, characterized criticism of the ruling as “fear-mongering.”
“I don’t think there’s any concern we’re going back to the dark days of rape prosecution,” he said. “This doesn’t change much. It just clarifies for jurors who has the burden of proof and who doesn’t. Outside this one area of law, that’s the way things are always done.”
Link said because of procedural rules, he did not expect the ruling to lead to many new trials for defendants convicted under the old court holdings.
by New Tryphalia » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:51 pm
Kaggeceria wrote:Galloism wrote:It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.
You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.
Jesus fucking Christ. What draconian bullshit.
by Scomagia » Tue Dec 04, 2018 1:59 pm
Kaggeceria wrote:Galloism wrote:It's also worth note that this was literally the law in Washington state - guilty until proven innocent based on the accuser's word alone - until 2014.
You think I'm being hyperbolic, but I'm not.
Jesus fucking Christ. What draconian bullshit.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:06 pm
Vassenor wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:
No, believe women is exactly what it says. Believe women when they make any kinds of allegations against men. If anyone doubts a woman's allegations, then they have chosen the side of the oppressor.
I have never actually seen anyone demand someone be treated as guilty until proven innocent. At least until someone starts claiming they made the accusation maliciously.
by The Black Forrest » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:24 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:Vassenor wrote:
I have never actually seen anyone demand someone be treated as guilty until proven innocent. At least until someone starts claiming they made the accusation maliciously.
Like Sen Booker
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398 ... n-the-evil
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source= ... 3937834834
by Kingliraelnin Lands » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:33 pm
by South Ccanda » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:41 pm
by Des-Bal » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:45 pm
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by South Ccanda » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:51 pm
Des-Bal wrote:We set policy by making the thing we WANT people to do the cheapest, easiest, or safest option.
We tolerate absolutely no method of insulating yourself against an accusation of sexual impropriety. When the popular standard is "believe women" and accusations can be levied without incriminating evidence, and so many years after the fact that it's impossible to gather exculpatory evidence, it just makes sense to exclude women. We can use the threat of discrimination lawsuits to curb this but those accusations are easier to fight in the court of public opinion which means the risk of someone breaking confidentiality after a settlement is much less severe.
by Des-Bal » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:58 pm
South Ccanda wrote:I'm not quite sure of what the point you are making is.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Vassenor » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:25 pm
South Ccanda wrote:Hey, lets not equate all of feminism to what has happened in recent times. I fully support first and second wave feminists, but those who participate in this third wave of feminism, these "Feminazis" and "Female Supremicists", this is the cause we should be fighting against.
by Neu Leonstein » Tue Dec 04, 2018 3:59 pm
Des-Bal wrote:This is a logical response that will inevitably continue until people and businesses have some way of protecting themselves from accusations.
There are as many or more men who are responding in quite different ways. One, an investment adviser who manages about 100 employees, said he briefly reconsidered having one-on-one meetings with junior women. He thought about leaving his office door open, or inviting a third person into the room.
Finally, he landed on the solution: “Just try not to be an asshole.”
That’s pretty much the bottom line, said Ron Biscardi, chief executive officer of Context Capital Partners. “It’s really not that hard.”
by Right wing humour squad » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:13 pm
by Liriena » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:26 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Liriena » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:27 pm
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Liriena » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:29 pm
Scomagia wrote:Dekerin Domains wrote:
Yeah, I'm a fairly left of center guy, but I've never been comfortable with the whole "lumping people together with group guilt" business of identity politics. Not once, not ever.
Same here. It's a practice I find revoltng. If you have an issue with what I say, take issue as an individual against another individual's opinions, not as a member of "Group A" vs. "Group B".
This is the basis of racism and sexism. You as an individual don't matter, it's your group affiliation that matters. It's absolute garbage. Liriena needs to cut this shit out if they want to be taken seriously. It isn't virtuous to treat people this way. It's wrong and disgusting.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by South Ccanda » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:33 pm
Vassenor wrote:South Ccanda wrote:Hey, lets not equate all of feminism to what has happened in recent times. I fully support first and second wave feminists, but those who participate in this third wave of feminism, these "Feminazis" and "Female Supremicists", this is the cause we should be fighting against.
I don't think you really understand what third-wave feminism is. Or are just assuming that radical feminism is all feminism.
by South Ccanda » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:34 pm
by Vassenor » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:35 pm
South Ccanda wrote:Vassenor wrote:
I don't think you really understand what third-wave feminism is. Or are just assuming that radical feminism is all feminism.
Please educate me on what the third wave of feminism is, because so far, it just seems like the entirety of the third wave is radicals.
and to answer your question, I did not compare radical feminism to all feminism, i'm literally trying to defend feminism from those who think
all feminists are radicals.
by Liriena » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:36 pm
Scomagia wrote:Liriena wrote:"Believe women" was not an attack on "Western" values. If anything, it was an attack on something that was and still is fundamentally broken about "Western" values, which is a widespread institutional reluctance to fully investigate sexual violence.
Also, nothing inherently sickening about memes based on righteous schadenfreude, specially if it comes into being as a response by a marginalized group to the insecurities of a more powerful group.
Believe all women has some pretty obvious connotations. It suggests attributing truth value to a woman's claims before investigating and until her account is disproven.
Scomagia wrote:That is somewhat anti-western, since you're arbitrarily deciding that what a person says is true because of their sex.
Scomagia wrote:"investigate all accusations"
Scomagia wrote:Deal with people as individuals, not as members of an "oppressor" or "oppressed" group. There's absolutely nothing righteous about playing the group hate, group responsibility game.
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by South Ccanda » Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:37 pm
Vassenor wrote:South Ccanda wrote:Please educate me on what the third wave of feminism is, because so far, it just seems like the entirety of the third wave is radicals.
and to answer your question, I did not compare radical feminism to all feminism, i'm literally trying to defend feminism from those who think
all feminists are radicals.
Third Wave feminism is, broadly speaking, Second Wave feminism plus intersectionality and a few other concepts. It's more about challenging the systems that lead to oppression rather than simply challenging the oppression itself.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: DataDyneIrkenAlliance, Diplomatinis, Ifreann, Likhinia, Lophostoma, Merriwhether, Pasong Tirad, Post War America, Simonia, Sublime Ottoman State 1800 RP, Urine Town, Valles Marineris Mining co
Advertisement