Hardwick is added to the list.

[jackstar7]

No, they either see it as something to investigate or do not. They do not accept it as true or false typically. Further, we were talking about society in general and I see no reason to not advocate for wanting evidence.

The reason I want evidence is acting accordingly may mean something as small as investigation and as far as killing.

For example, if a guy is covered in blood running a severed head and yelling at me that I'm next, investigating does not seem like the correct course of action.

In terms of rape, an investigation seems most appropriate and I no reason to see someone as guilty until proven innocent.

You injected true or false into this. I think the more precise wording would be do they see the claim as credible or not. Credible claims are investigated (in theory).

Advocate away. I'm not stopping you. I think you're missing the forest for a very few trees, but whatever.

In your example, you immediately did all the investigating. You examined the evidence and make a conclusion. The threat is credible from the bloody individual.

Investigation, certainly, but then you're saying that people should not speak out? How do you stop them from doing so? What if they feel compelled to warn others about the person they are accusing?

You bring up rape, by the way. This movement is about the whole range of unwanted behavior from people in power, be it subtle or explicitly violent or abusive. Why is it important to you to single out rape?

 

[Younigue]

@realibrad
To put it another way:
Imagine you come across a building on fire, and you see there are people inside, and you're the only one who can do something about it.

Do you spend time trying to put out the fire by yourself? Or do you try to save whomever you can get out?

Because assault/abuse/etc are all still prevalent. The fire is real. Do your ambitions do anything to stop that? Or only make the fallout more palatable for you?

I've been in a tough spot like this though it turned out to be an asbestos smoldering and not a fire though we didn't know that. Somuch smoke. I ran for the baby while his mother ran from the house without him. In the moment? I needed the other adults (I was questionably one myself, 17) to get themselves out but once I was out of the house I fully planned to go back in and get the others... The other adults were already out there.

I think I'm proving and disproving your point here. My instinct & priority was to help the one who needed it the most.

I view this movement as very much needed.

 

[jackstar7]

I've been in a tough spot like this though it turned out to be an asbestos smoldering and not a fire though we didn't know that. Somuch smoke. I ran for the baby while his mother ran from the house without him. In the moment? I needed the other adults (I was questionably one myself, 17) to get themselves out but once I was out of the house I fully planned to go back in and get the others... The other adults were already out there.

I think I'm proving and disproving your point here. My instinct & priority was to help the one who needed it the most.

I view this movement as very much needed.

That's utterly harrowing and traumatic. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Younigue]

Oh come on now, I am allowed to be a little petty sometimes. Its the scarlet letter effect.

That's better. Call it what it is but even then within limits.

 

[Younigue]

That's utterly harrowing and traumatic. Thanks for sharing that.

I was devastated and heartbroken that his mother didn't even think to grab her barely walking son. She ran past his bedroom. I had to run further away from the exit to retrieve him.

I was just telling brad in PM that some things, some people I will never understand. She has stuck with me for 30 years. Though I comprehend fight or flight her instincts crushed me.

 

[Younigue]

Wont change if we never try.

This is one facet of trying. See that part of it brad.

 

[Younigue]

No, not morality either. Killing anyone with an IQ of below 69 would be horrific and immoral, even though it would likely make society more productive. Deeply immoral and illogical.

Nope, natural order would kick in again where anyone with an I.Q. of less than 89, those people would take the place of the 69ers and lower.

 

[realibrad]

In this context. The context of victims not being marginalized or otherwise dismissed. Yes. I'd much prefer that being fully addressed before I fret about bad actors. You keep saying you can do both and we come right back to perfection is the enemy of the good.

You run in circles.

Is it marginalizing to look for evidence of rape?

 

[Younigue]

No, they either see it as something to investigate or do not. They do not accept it as true or false typically.

choosing not to investigate is a pretty big clue that you haven't been believed... That the victim is lying. That is part of why so many women stay quiet... Why so many people don't go for justice when their child has been hurt as well. Poor argument here brad.

 

[realibrad]

You injected true or false into this. I think the more precise wording would be do they see the claim as credible or not. Credible claims are investigated (in theory).

Advocate away. I'm not stopping you. I think you're missing the forest for a very few trees, but whatever.

In your example, you immediately did all the investigating. You examined the evidence and make a conclusion. The threat is credible from the bloody individual.

Investigation, certainly, but then you're saying that people should not speak out? How do you stop them from doing so? What if they feel compelled to warn others about the person they are accusing?

You bring up rape, by the way. This movement is about the whole range of unwanted behavior from people in power, be it subtle or explicitly violent or abusive. Why is it important to you to single out rape?

Saying you want claims to be investigated is perfectly inline with what I have been saying. The issue was that you were already acting as if he was guilty rather than a credible claim levied. You were calling him shit and asking others what more would it take for them to also agree.

We have been talking about rape for a while. I have no problem with the movement and have said as much in this thread.

 

[realibrad]

Nope, natural order would kick in again where anyone with an I.Q. of less than 89, those people would take the place of the 69ers and lower.

No, not really. There is a threshold where your abilities are so small that you cannot be productive enough to be useful.

Think of it like this, the military has a minimum IQ of 85. They really want new people, and yet they have a minimum for a reason. The military did research and figured that anything below that and you would likely not be useful to them for even basic tasks. Not just fighting on the front lines, but, they could find no real use.

Its a problem that we have yet to address. Its not that those with low IQs will be at the bottom, its that with a low enough IQ, you cant even really take care of yourself and require assistance. The research is kinda depressing on that front.

 

[realibrad]

choosing not to investigate is a pretty big clue that you haven't been believed... That the victim is lying. That is part of why so many women stay quiet... Why so many people don't go for justice when their child has been hurt as well. Poor argument here brad.

Not true. Sometimes there is just not enough evidence.

Rape usually leaves evidence behind, but, not all assaults do. Sometimes they wont investigate because they don't believe its worth trying to solve. Sad by true.

 

[Younigue]

Is it marginalizing to look for evidence of rape?

It is marginalizing to make them feel dismissed which is often the case. The Boys Club exists brad.

 

[Younigue]

Saying you want claims to be investigated is perfectly inline with what I have been saying. The issue was that you were already acting as if he was guilty rather than a credible claim levied. You were calling him shit and asking others what more would it take for them to also agree.

We have been talking about rape for a while. I have no problem with the movement and have said as much in this thread.

If the allegations are true, Hardwick IS shit. Jack can apologize later if they're not true.

 

[Younigue]

No, not really. There is a threshold where your abilities are so small that you cannot be productive enough to be useful.

Think of it like this, the military has a minimum IQ of 85. They really want new people, and yet they have a minimum for a reason. The military did research and figured that anything below that and you would likely not be useful to them for even basic tasks. Not just fighting on the front lines, but, they could find no real use.

Its a problem that we have yet to address. Its not that those with low IQs will be at the bottom, its that with a low enough IQ, you cant even really take care of yourself and require assistance. The research is kinda depressing on that front.

And society would up its game, up its definition of "taking care of oneself".

 

[Younigue]

Not true. Sometimes there is just not enough evidence.

Rape usually leaves evidence behind, but, not all assaults do. Sometimes they wont investigate because they don't believe its worth trying to solve. Sad by true.

And it's (as women KNOW) A very fluid concept of what entails enough evidence. Your view in this is too narrow and a bit naive.

 

[realibrad]

It is marginalizing to make them feel dismissed which is often the case. The Boys Club exists brad.

I have sympathy for that, but, you agree that we also don't presume guilt either. So, to me the right thing to do is our best to find evidence and sometimes accept that we wont always get it. We must also make it as easy as possible to report and come forward, which is historically not been done.

 

[realibrad]

If the allegations are true, Hardwick IS shit. Jack can apologize later if they're not true.

He can, and on an individual level he is not really the issue. But, the metoo movement is about changing society by changing individuals. Why cant we do the same with how people perceive these things? You can do it without hurting the other by simply understanding the situation more.

 

[realibrad]

And society would up its game, up its definition of "taking care of oneself".

Can you explain more? I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Younigue]

I have sympathy for that, but, you agree that we also don't presume guilt either. So, to me the right thing to do is our best to find evidence and sometimes accept that we wont always get it. We must also make it as easy as possible to report and come forward, which is historically not been done.

So explain how your concept doesn't favor the majority over the few? How are you not sacrificing the women for what they are faced with when they come forward?

 

[realibrad]

And it's (as women KNOW) A very fluid concept of what entails enough evidence. Your view in this is too narrow and a bit naive.

Right, and the metoo movement I hope gets people to try harder to find evidence to try and hopefully get justice. But, wanting people to assume guilt with the hope that you can undo the damage already done seems flawed.

 

[Younigue]

Can you explain more? I'm not sure I understand.

Because disgustingly no society will be without its lowest form to shame and look down upon and pity. 89ers to 70ers would become the new 69ers and lower.

 

[realibrad]

So explain how your concept doesn't favor the majority over the few? How are you not sacrificing the women for what they are faced with when they come forward?

Because guilty until proven innocent turns the tables and places the burden from one person to another. You are not increasing or decreasing harm, just shifting it from an alleged victim to an alleged perpetrator.

 

[Younigue]

Right, and the metoo movement I hope gets people to try harder to find evidence to try and hopefully get justice. But, wanting people to assume guilt with the hope that you can undo the damage already done seems flawed.

But then you're asking the traumatized to solve their own cases when they are forever altered especially about their own abuse. You're asking victims to think straight while being victimized.

 

[realibrad]

Because disgustingly no society will be without its lowest form to shame and look down upon and pity. 89ers to 70ers would become the new 69ers and lower.

But, what is holding those 69ers back is not society. What is holding them back is that their brains are not efficient enough to be useful for almost everything.

Go back to the military thing. If these people could be productive, then the military would want them. They don't want them because they are not useful for doing things.

The immorality is that if you define things purely in terms of productivity then you miss so much more.