Jump to content

A very tough (and possibly controversial) poll about sexual abuse and rape


A very tough (and possibly controversial) poll about sexual abuse and rape  

  1. 1. Would you prefer to be sexually abused or raped, or be falsely accused of sexual abuse or rape?

    • You get sexually abused or raped but afterwards all of your friends and family sympathize with you and they do their best to help you recover.
      0
    • You get falsely accused of sexual abuse or rape, you go to prison, all of your friends and family turn against you and the rest of your life is ruined.
      0

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

I find this thread deeply offensive.  There seem to be several members who's general feeling about rape is "we have to protect men".

I won't be returning to this abomination of a thread...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I find this thread deeply offensive.  There seem to be several members who's general feeling about rape is "we have to protect men".

I won't be returning to this abomination of a thread...

 

It is not about protecting men. It is about protecting the innocent. What is wrong with that?

Edited by tim.tdj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I find this thread deeply offensive.  There seem to be several members who's general feeling about rape is "we have to protect men".

I won't be returning to this abomination of a thread...

 

I find it offensive too, that the law is expected by some here to pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. That's not how justice works, which is to treat people equal under the law, until the jury decides who is telling the truth.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

It is not about protecting men. It is about protecting the innocent

I’ve just reviewed every post in this thread. Zero mechanisms have been suggested to help protect the innocent. Is this simply another example of you arguing in bad faith?

Thanks for the neg reps though, Tim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

It is not about protecting men. It is about protecting the innocent. What is wrong with that?

Because you aren't being intellectually honest with your argument. You've perverted the idea that we should start by believing accusers into "believe them 100% without doubt". Then you and others piled on with anecdotes from the radio where this perverted argument was repeated, claiming it's only what you've heard. It's pretty sick because once again you're making it harder for victims to get justice from a level field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’ve just reviewed every post in this thread. Zero mechanisms have been suggested to help protect the innocent. Is this simply another example of you arguing in bad faith?

That is a perfectly reasonable expectation. It's not about faith, a case is about evidence...essentially, both the complainant and defendant are under scrutiny. There's no way, I can see, of escaping it, unless one of them capitulates their position.

Edited by StringJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That is a perfectly reasonable expectation. It's not about faith, a case is about evidence

When I mentioned faith, it was about intellectual honesty in this discussion, not belief of the women. It appears the OP is arguing in bad faith. 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Because you aren't being intellectually honest with your argument. You've perverted the idea that we should start by believing accusers into "believe them 100% without doubt". Then you and others piled on with anecdotes from the radio where this perverted argument was repeated, claiming it's only what you've heard. It's pretty sick because once again you're making it harder for victims to get justice from a level field.

I have nothing whatsoever against a genuine victim getting justice provided it is the result of an impartial cautious intelligent investigation where no presumptions whatsoever are made.

Edited by tim.tdj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

When I mentioned faith, it was about intellectual honest in this discussion, not belief of the women. It appears the OP is arguing in bad faith. 

You are  arguing that the content of his assertion is not true? I can't support that his quote is exactly correct verbatim but the general assertion is, I think... if my memory is to be trusted.  :) 

Edited by StringJunky
Coorected to make sense
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tim.tdj said:

I have nothing whatsoever against a genuine victim getting justice provided it is the result of an impartial cautious intelligent investigation where no presumptions whatsoever are made.

And that doesn't happen in these cases because the presumptions are often that the woman was dressed in a certain way, or had been drinking, or somehow hadn't made her wish not to be raped clear enough. What "believe women" means is to remove this bullshit and start from "no presumptions whatsoever are made". And as in any case that goes to court, you start with the premise that the accuser is going to tell the truth in a court of law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

And that doesn't happen in these cases because the presumptions are often that the woman was dressed in a certain way, or had been drinking, or somehow hadn't made her wish not to be raped clear enough. What "believe women" means is to remove this bullshit and start from "no presumptions whatsoever are made". And as in any case that goes to court, you start with the premise that the accuser is going to tell the truth in a court of law.

It seems that you and I are both in agreement that what happens in a court of law in reality is not what should happen in a court of law. I think that a much higher bar of intelligence should be set. The metaphorical pendulum should stop swinging from side to side and settle in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sexual assault and sexual harassment against women is endemic. It makes covid look like a shy introvert living in it's mothers basement and never going outside.

False allegations exist, but are exceedingly uncommon. Men are FAR more likely to be raped themselves than to be accused falsely of rape.

When millions upon millions of women tell us decade after decade after decade that we have a problem with this issue in our society, presuming these claims are rather likely valid does no harm to the actual justice being meted out in our courts of law.

EVERYONE here in good faith agrees that each case is unique and that misapplied punishments should be avoided. Focusing on that miniscule sub-fractional handful of misapplied punishments, however, does more to illustrate an extreme blind spot and likely agenda from the speaker than it does to "protect the innocent."

If justice and protection of innocent lives are so very important to you, then let me recommend you instead consider focusing on the tens of thousands of times women come forward with genuine claims that later get dismissed or swept aside (or which cause them to face retribution and retaliation) instead of focusing upon that one or two bros who maybe had bad luck once. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

Sexual assault and sexual harassment against women is endemic. It makes covid look like a shy introvert living in it's mothers basement and never going outside.

False allegations exist, but are exceedingly uncommon. Men are FAR more likely to be raped themselves than to be accused falsely of rape.

When millions upon millions of women tell us decade after decade after decade that we have a problem with this issue in our society, presuming these claims are rather likely valid does no harm to the actual justice being meted out in our courts of law.

EVERYONE here in good faith agrees that each case is unique and that misapplied punishments should be avoided. Focusing on that miniscule sub-fractional handful of misapplied punishments, however, does more to illustrate an extreme blind spot and likely agenda from the speaker than it does to "protect the innocent."

If justice and protection of innocent lives are so very important to you, then let me recommend you instead consider focusing on the tens of thousands of times women come forward with genuine claims that later get dismissed or swept aside (or which cause them to face retribution and retaliation) instead of focusing upon that one or two bros who maybe had bad luck once. 

I am entirely in favour of any allegation being properly investigated in an impartial intelligent manner. I am as horrified as you are when victims are simply ignored. The problem with the police and criminal justice system is that all too often the people involved take extreme positions on one side or the other. I very strongly believe that the only acceptable position to start from is the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tim.tdj said:

I am entirely in favour of any allegation being properly investigated in an impartial intelligent manner.

I and the team of detectives I supervise do exactly that, thank you very much

Quote

I am as horrified as you are when victims are simply ignored.

Not by me they're not.

Quote

The problem with the police and criminal justice system is that all too often the people involved take extreme positions on one side or the other.

Utter bollocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

I find it offensive too, that the law is expected by some here to pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. That's not how justice works, which is to treat people equal under the law, until the jury decides who is telling the truth.

I think you are misunderstanding our position. We are not suggesting that we pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. What we are suggesting is that we STOP pre-favouring the testimony of one over the other.

History has shown that all too often the accused is presumed innocent (as it should be) while the accuser is presumed to be making a false accusation.

What we are suggesting is that we continue to presume the accused is innocent, while at the same time presuming that the accuser is telling the truth. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I think you are misunderstanding our position. We are not suggesting that we pre-favour the testimony of one over the other. What we are suggesting is that we STOP pre-favouring the testimony of one over the other.

History has shown that all too often the accused is presumed innocent (as it should be) while the accuser is presumed to be making a false accusation.

What we are suggesting is that we continue to presume the accused is innocent, while at the same time presuming that the accuser is telling the truth. 

I'll go along with that, but doing it is another matter because both sides of the legal teams have an interest in supporting their client.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'll go along with that, but doing it is another matter because both sides of the legal teams have an interest in supporting their client.

When the legal profession follows their own guidelines, which I believe nowadays they generally do, then supporting their own client with zealousness works well to uncover the truth.

Where we still have a long way to go is with the politicians who decide who to believe based on politics (see recent US Supreme Court nominees) or the public who decide who to believe based on how it will impact their fantasy football league (e.g. Death threats against accuser of football and basketball stars.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

The problem with the police and criminal justice system is that all too often the people involved take extreme positions on one side or the other

I already know you'll ignore this, too.. but how often? Got a source that isn't your colon in support of this assertion?

3 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

I very strongly believe that the only acceptable position to start from is the middle.

The strength of your belief is irrelevant. If someone says the earth is flat and another says the earth is spherical, the most acceptable position is definitely not to "start from the middle," no matter how strongly they believe it. One of these positions is far more evidenced and far more likely to be true than the other, much like in these cases of sexual violence and harassment.

The equivalence you suggest as your preferred starting point is a false one.

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

I already know you'll ignore this, too.. but how often? Got a source that isn't your colon in support of this assertion?

The strength of your belief is irrelevant. If someone says the earth is flat and another says the earth is spherical, the most acceptable position is definitely not to "start from the middle," no matter how strongly they believe it. One of these positions is far more evidenced and far more likely to be true than the other, much like in these cases of sexual violence and harassment.

The equivalence you suggest as your preferred starting point is a false one.

iNow, the obvious response is going to be a negative one, is it not. This is how already-polarising discussions fall apart into acrimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny part is that already represents my dialed back response. Perhaps after the Kavanaugh thread I'm tired of having to push back on the same strawmen that smell an awful lot like they're coming from incels. 

You and I both know he'll provide no source for his baseless claim. He's nothing if not consistent on that front. He's arguing from a position of fiction

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, iNow said:

The strength of your belief is irrelevant. If someone says the earth is flat and another says the earth is spherical, the most acceptable position is definitely not to "start from the middle," no matter how strongly they believe it. One of these positions is far more evidenced and far more likely to be true than the other, much like in these cases of sexual violence and harassment.

Before you have heard or seen any evidence whatsoever, the best position is definitely always the middle. Once you start hearing and seeing the evidence, you should apply as much caution and intelligence as possible to deciding how to interpret the evidence you are hearing and seeing (making sure you are not being mislead) and allow your considered interpretation to guide you. Only when this careful process takes you beyond any reasonable doubt can you come to any conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you're welcome to your opinion. I, however, don't go to sleep at night equally uncertain whether or not the sun will rise in the morning. The evidence is pretty consistently on one side of that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, tim.tdj said:

The problem with the police and criminal justice system is that all too often the people involved take extreme positions on one side or the other.

Just to be clear, are you going to provide a source for this assertion or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Just to be clear, are you going to provide a source for this assertion or not?

A few examples of where the criminal justice system has gone wrong have already been provided in this thread. One incidence is one too many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you’re conflating “the criminal justice system making mistakes” with “people involved in the justice system taking extreme positions on one side or the other.”

For someone so self-professedly passionate about justice and accuracy, your style of argumentation is decidedly inaccurate and unjust. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.