#MeToo Becomes #LeaveMeAlone

[Des-Bal]

Given that at no point have I actually said anything remotely close to the idea that people who make malicious false reports should not be punished?

This is the solution proposed.

The obvious solution to this is for some of the innocent men targeted by this to start suing the pants off anyone who's accused them.

Do you agree with this solution.

[Vassenor]

Given that at no point have I actually said anything remotely close to the idea that people who make malicious false reports should not be punished?

This is the solution proposed.

The obvious solution to this is for some of the innocent men targeted by this to start suing the pants off anyone who's accused them.

Do you agree with this solution.

So apparently that is the only solution given that disagreeing with it somehow equates to "thinks there should be no punishment".

[Costa Fierro]

If this continues, there is only one way that it will end: a backlash the likes of which the feminists cannot possibly fathom, one which will upend any positive objectives that they have achieved along with the negative ones, and which will bring society back to square one. All of their gains will be erased, just like that. I dare say that it will be a violent one, too, an upheaval, a counter-revolution achieved by deadly force.

I'll drink to that.

[Des-Bal]

So apparently that is the only solution given that disagreeing with it somehow equates to "thinks there should be no punishment".

Sorry, if there's any confusion it's because your total refusal to spell out your position has made it difficult to get at your point.


"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."

Yes or no.

[Thuzbekistan]

So apparently that is the only solution given that disagreeing with it somehow equates to "thinks there should be no punishment".

Sorry, if there's any confusion it's because your total refusal to spell out your position has made it difficult to get at your point.


"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."

Yes or no.

Yay false dichotomies.

[Vassenor]

So apparently that is the only solution given that disagreeing with it somehow equates to "thinks there should be no punishment".

Sorry, if there's any confusion it's because your total refusal to spell out your position has made it difficult to get at your point.


"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."

Yes or no.

Again, something I have never come close to saying. Put that shovel down.

[Costa Fierro]

Sorry, if there's any confusion it's because your total refusal to spell out your position has made it difficult to get at your point.


"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."

Yes or no.

Again, something I have never come close to saying. Put that shovel down.

Answer the fucking question for once. It's not that difficult. It's not even a difficult answer, it's a yes or a no.

[Vassenor]

Then again we live in a world where even with forensic evidence that violent rape occurred, it's possible to plea-bargain your way out of even having to go on the register and get away with deferred community service and a minimal fine.

[Des-Bal]

Again, something I have never come close to saying. Put that shovel down.

You could always just lay out your position like I've been telling you to. Or we could play 20 questions.

Either way though:

Yay false dichotomies.

This is actually a proper dichotomy. People either ARE or ARE NOT vulnerable to civil suit, Vassenor either believes that you SHOULD be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation or that you SHOULD NOT be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation. So, I repeat the question without any concern for whether it resembles something you said before.

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."
Yes or no.

[Vassenor]

Again, something I have never come close to saying. Put that shovel down.

You could always just lay out your position like I've been telling you to. Or we could play 20 questions.

Either way though:

Yay false dichotomies.

This is actually a proper dichotomy. People either ARE or ARE NOT vulnerable to civil suit, Vassenor either believes that you SHOULD be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation or that you SHOULD NOT be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation. So, I repeat the question without any concern for whether it resembles something you said before.

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."
Yes or no.

Oh, so you admit that jamming words into my mouth doesn't work?

And a malicious false accusation sounds more like a criminal offence. Not a civil tort.

[Bear Stearns]

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #MadeThatBihSkwert

[Des-Bal]

Oh, so you admit that jamming words into my mouth doesn't work?

And a malicious false accusation sounds more like a criminal offence. Not a civil tort.

I'm not interested in your deflections.

Is that a "Yes, a person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." If it's not a non-sequitur.

[Vassenor]

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #MadeThatBihSkwert

What?

[Vassenor]

Oh, so you admit that jamming words into my mouth doesn't work?

And a malicious false accusation sounds more like a criminal offence. Not a civil tort.

I'm not interested in your deflections.

Is that a "Yes, a person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." If it's not a non-sequitur.

I'm saying it should be unnecessary - if there is evidence they made the accusation maliciously, then bring them up on criminal charges.

[Bear Stearns]

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #MadeThatBihSkwert

What?

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #PsychoExGirlfriendAccusesMeOfRapeToSabotageMarriageToSecondWife

[Vassenor]

What?

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #PsychoExGirlfriendAccusesMeOfRapeToSabotageMarriageToSecondWife

You mean something else that hasn't really happened successfully?

[Kaggeceria]

You could always just lay out your position like I've been telling you to. Or we could play 20 questions.

Either way though:



This is actually a proper dichotomy. People either ARE or ARE NOT vulnerable to civil suit, Vassenor either believes that you SHOULD be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation or that you SHOULD NOT be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation. So, I repeat the question without any concern for whether it resembles something you said before.

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."
Yes or no.

Oh, so you admit that jamming words into my mouth doesn't work?

No, he's just asking you a question that you apparently find impossible to answer.

And a malicious false accusation sounds more like a criminal offence. Not a civil tort.

People who commit criminal offences can still be sued by their victims.

Would you be okay with those accused of false rape accusations suing their accusers? Fairly straightforward question.

[Bear Stearns]

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #PsychoExGirlfriendAccusesMeOfRapeToSabotageMarriageToSecondWife

You mean something else that hasn't really happened successfully?

Not with my lawyers.

[Des-Bal]

I'm saying it should be unnecessary - if there is evidence they made the accusation maliciously, then bring them up on criminal charges.

Neato! So in addition to that:

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." Yes or no.

This is the fifth time I've asked you a very simple question.

[Vassenor]

I'm saying it should be unnecessary - if there is evidence they made the accusation maliciously, then bring them up on criminal charges.

Neato! So in addition to that:

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." Yes or no.

This is the fifth time I've asked you a very simple question.

And it's the fifth time you've ignored my answer because it doesn't conform to what you want to hear.

[Aellex]

Neato! So in addition to that:

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." Yes or no.

This is the fifth time I've asked you a very simple question.

And it's the fifth time you've ignored my answer because it doesn't conform to what you want to hear.

Unsurprisingly, a closed question begets either a positive or negative answer, it's as simple as that.

[Kaggeceria]

And it's the fifth time you've ignored my answer because it doesn't conform to what you want to hear.

Unsurprisingly, a closed question begets either a positive or negative answer, it's as simple as that.

It's far easier to tap-dance around the question than it is to actually answer it.

[Des-Bal]

And it's the fifth time you've ignored my answer because it doesn't conform to what you want to hear.

Good thing this is being recorded for posterity. Go ahead and open that spoiler for an in depth analysis of how not true that statement is.

First time

Are you saying that people should face no repercussions for making malicious false reports. This is the only thing that was proposed, it is the only thing you're fighting. Use all the words you like but please preface them with yes or no.

Given that at no point have I actually said anything remotely close to the idea that people who make malicious false reports should not be punished?

You do not answer the question, you just distance yourself from the idea of having already given an answer.

This is the solution proposed.

The obvious solution to this is for some of the innocent men targeted by this to start suing the pants off anyone who's accused them.

Do you agree with this solution.

So apparently that is the only solution given that disagreeing with it somehow equates to "thinks there should be no punishment".

You do not answer the question, you just take issue with how it's phrased.

Sorry, if there's any confusion it's because your total refusal to spell out your position has made it difficult to get at your point.


"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."

Yes or no.

Again, something I have never come close to saying. Put that shovel down.

You ignore the question, you once again distance yourself from the idea of having already answered it.

You could always just lay out your position like I've been telling you to. Or we could play 20 questions.

Either way though:


This is actually a proper dichotomy. People either ARE or ARE NOT vulnerable to civil suit, Vassenor either believes that you SHOULD be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation or that you SHOULD NOT be able to sue someone for making a malicious false accusation. So, I repeat the question without any concern for whether it resembles something you said before.

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same."
Yes or no.

Oh, so you admit that jamming words into my mouth doesn't work?

And a malicious false accusation sounds more like a criminal offence. Not a civil tort.

You do not answer the question about the proposed solution, only suggest that a better solution may exist.

I'm not interested in your deflections.

Is that a "Yes, a person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." If it's not a non-sequitur.

I'm saying it should be unnecessary - if there is evidence they made the accusation maliciously, then bring them up on criminal charges.

You repeat your support for an alternative without actually giving your opinion on the solution proposed.

Neato! So in addition to that:

"A person who makes a false rape accusation should be immune from civil suits flowing from the same." Yes or no.

This is the fifth time I've asked you a very simple question.

And it's the fifth time you've ignored my answer because it doesn't conform to what you want to hear.

You ignore the question again.

It is a binary issue. You necessarily believe one or the other. If you actually answered the question we can put a "Yes," or a "No," at the beginning of it and everything will be exactly the same. Pick one.

You refuse to state whether you actually think the proposal you've been riding for two pages is actually something you disagree with. I posit that it's because you don't disagree, you think- as all reasonable people should- that civil recourse should be available for malicious false accusations. But if you admit that the curtain will come down and everyone will see that you're just being contrary- you're disagreeing with sensible things because of tribalism or gamesmanship or whatever. It's the same reason you won't address how wrong you were about cross-examination in campus rape tribunals. You spread misinformation about a serious due process issue either maliciously or out of ignorance but you're not prepared to admit either.

[South Ccanda]

#LeaveMeAlone becomes #MadeThatBihSkwert

What?

they are being inappropriate.

[Petrasylvania]

Then again we live in a world where even with forensic evidence that violent rape occurred, it's possible to plea-bargain your way out of even having to go on the register and get away with deferred community service and a minimal fine.

He's the real victim, not those lying sluts he banged like an alpha stud. *nod*