Hardwick is added to the list.

[Younigue]

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.

Then I'm with Jack.

Do you think victims won't be sacrificed due to the process you want to be in place?

 

[Younigue]

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.

Go back and read what I said. The definition of productive would change.

 

[realibrad]

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.

Which bring up more options. We need more support from society in trying to support those people that are victims. But, ultimately yes, the victim will need to suffer more often times because the alternative is that the innocent will be condemned.

There is so much more we can do beyond assuming accusations are truth. Education on how to prevent rape, what to do when you are raped, support you can seek, education of law enforcement ect.

 

[realibrad]

Then I'm with Jack.

Do you think victims won't be sacrificed due to the process you want to be in place?

Why is it right to sacrifice the innocent? How is that more moral?

 

[Younigue]

For that matter why is it more important to you that potential victims be scrutinized than potential perpetrators. You have it backwards.

 

[realibrad]

Go back and read what I said. The definition of productive would change.

No. A productive person is a person that produces more than what is required for them to survive. The indication from the data is that we have about 10% of the population we cannot find productive things for them to do. So, in terms of economic productivity they are dead weight.

What makes doing away with them immoral is that people should not be valued only on their economic productivity.

 

[jackstar7]

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.

Innocent until proven guilty works for the courts. It'll never be applied to corporate interests.

Which bring up more options. We need more support from society in trying to support those people that are victims. But, ultimately yes, the victim will need to suffer more often times because the alternative is that the innocent will be condemned.

There is so much more we can do beyond assuming accusations are truth. Education on how to prevent rape, what to do when you are raped, support you can seek, education of law enforcement ect.

The innocent will be condemned? Are the victims of abuse/attack not innocent?

 

[jackstar7]

Why is it right to sacrifice the innocent? How is that more moral?

And again you seem to be making a distinction between the victims of violence/abuse/etc. and innocent people. Why is that?

 

[Younigue]

Which bring up more options. We need more support from society in trying to support those people that are victims. But, ultimately yes, the victim will need to suffer more often times because the alternative is that the innocent will be condemned.

There is so much more we can do beyond assuming accusations are truth. Education on how to prevent rape, what to do when you are raped, support you can seek, education of law enforcement ect.

Well, you did it brad. You lost me. This isn't about not sacrificing anyone. This is about not sacrificing people accused of something they may not have done.

You're ask is for all of society rather than a culture worthy of changing. Men can absolutely be asked to stand up and tell other men that mistreating and abusing women is no longer acceptable.

 

[Younigue]

Why is it right to sacrifice the innocent? How is that more moral?

How is sacrificing potential victims more moral? You've backed yourself in to a corner here brad.

 

[Younigue]

No. A productive person is a person that produces more than what is required for them to survive. The indication from the data is that we have about 10% of the population we cannot find productive things for them to do. So, in terms of economic productivity they are dead weight.

What makes doing away with them immoral is that people should not be valued only on their economic productivity.

Technology, advancements and evolution would dictate their usefulness.
I'm not misunderstanding you here brad but I am including human nature in to this scenario you've presented. Just like Orange is the new black 89ers to 70ers would be the new 69ers or lower.

It would be immoral because it would be a cleansing and it would solve nothing.

 

[woolfe9998]

While this discussion of evidence and burdens of proof is interesting, the accuser here may as well have admitted that there was no sexual assault in the very sentence in which she accused him of sexual assault.

By this time, like I said, I was terrified to piss him off- so I did what he said.…Including let him sexually assault me. Regularly. I was expected to be ready for him when he came home from work.

There's no such thing as consenting to being sexually assaulted. Sexual assault, like rape, is sexual contact for which there is no consent, and which is done either by force, by threat of force, or under circumstances where it is impossible for the victim to consent (like drugged, unconscious).

She describes no such thing in her essay. It's actually pretty unclear what she's talking about because she gives no detail, but it sounds like he liked rough/dominant sex, and that she didn't like it but let him do it anyway because she was "terrified to piss him off." She doesn't say she was afraid because of a physical threat, or that he had beaten her on any occasion. In context of everything she's said and written, I would guess her fear was that he would break up with her. Feeling pressured to do something you don't want to do by anything other than a threat of force is not sexual assault.

TLDR summary: regardless of her use of the phrase "sexual assault" she does not actually allege anything constituting sexual assault.

 

[jackstar7]

While this discussion of evidence and burdens of proof is interesting, the accuser here may as well have admitted that there was no sexual assault in the very sentence in which she accused him of sexual assault.



There's no such thing as consenting to being sexually assaulted. Sexual assault, like rape, is sexual contact for which there is no consent, and which is done either by force, by threat of force, or under circumstances where it is impossible for the victim to consent (like drugged, unconscious).

She describes no such thing in her essay. It's actually pretty unclear what she's talking about because she gives no detail, but it sounds like he liked rough/dominant sex, and that she didn't like it but let him do it anyway because she was "terrified to piss him off." She doesn't say she was afraid because of a physical threat, or that he had beaten her on any occasion. In context of everything she's said and written, I would guess her fear was that he would break up with her. Feeling pressured to do something you don't want to do by anything other than a threat of force is not sexual assault.

TLDR summary: regardless of her use of the phrase "sexual assault" she does not actually allege anything constituting sexual assault.

That all seems reasonable.

I never expected criminal charges against him. I don't think pieces of shit are always criminals, and vice-versa.

It is curious to see what happens longer term with his career. He doesn't seem to be getting the support that was shown to Aziz when his situation was being digested by the public, but at this point he still has his television shows, so I don't expect that he's hurting.

 

[realibrad]

How is sacrificing potential victims more moral? You've backed yourself in to a corner here brad.

That is my point. What Jack has done is to side with the victim and sacrifice the accused perp. I say sacrifice because what Jack wants is the presumption of guilt until that person has been proved to be innocent. The problem is that there are times when there is not enough evidence to prove guilt or innocence. So, in that he is saying that legally you dont find them guilty, but, socially they would be guilty. That is why he is assuming this guy is horrible, because of the presumption of guilt.

The reason he is doing this is because the alleged victim has been through assault. He wants the burden of things like an investigation to not have to fall on the alleged victim. The problem is that he then shifts the burden onto the accused legally and or socially. That is what I disagree with.

 

[realibrad]

Technology, advancements and evolution would dictate their usefulness.
I'm not misunderstanding you here brad but I am including human nature in to this scenario you've presented. Just like Orange is the new black 89ers to 70ers would be the new 69ers or lower.

It would be immoral because it would be a cleansing and it would solve nothing.

Oh, are you saying that eventually people will lose out to technology so those that are not productive now will eventually become less productive later?

 

[Maxima1]

Oh, are you saying that eventually people will lose out to technology so those that are not productive now will eventually become less productive later?

Many people are in jobs that aren't really "productive". For example, many studies say remedial classes in college are bull**** and should be done away with. But are ZMP jobs a dire problem? No.

 

[realibrad]

Many people are in jobs that aren't really "productive". For example, many studies say remedial classes in college are bull**** and should be done away with. But are ZMP jobs a dire problem? No.

I very much disagree with this, but its dinner time.

 

[Younigue]

That is my point. What Jack has done is to side with the victim and sacrifice the accused perp. I say sacrifice because what Jack wants is the presumption of guilt until that person has been proved to be innocent. The problem is that there are times when there is not enough evidence to prove guilt or innocence. So, in that he is saying that legally you dont find them guilty, but, socially they would be guilty. That is why he is assuming this guy is horrible, because of the presumption of guilt.

The reason he is doing this is because the alleged victim has been through assault. He wants the burden of things like an investigation to not have to fall on the alleged victim. The problem is that he then shifts the burden onto the accused legally and or socially. That is what I disagree with.

That's not exactly what he's saying. He's clarified it several times.

 

[Younigue]

Oh, are you saying that eventually people will lose out to technology so those that are not productive now will eventually become less productive later?

No, I'm saying societies require lower's. Remove one, they'll be replaced. I'm saying that the lowest I.Q.'s in a society will always be targeted for being a drain, being less productive, and sadly expendable or at least ignored or neglected. Even if we become a designer made society (that knocks us out and every one we know) it'll be the 134ers to the 125ers that will be considered the least productive members of the society.

There is no happiness all the time solution. As a species were actually designed to put each other down and hold each other down to advance and know what we don't want to be. As a species we get it so twisted and fu*ked up because we add ugliness and envy in to it. Not that it's not ugly already, it is.

 

[Maxima1]

No, I'm saying societies require lower's. Remove one, they'll be replaced. I'm saying that the lowest I.Q.'s in a society will always be targeted for being a drain, being less productive, and sadly expendable or at least ignored or neglected. Even if we become a designer made society (that knocks us out and every one we know) it'll be the 134ers to the 125ers that will be considered the least productive members of the society.

There is no happiness all the time solution. As a species were actually designed to put each other down and hold each other down to advance and know what we don't want to be. As a species we get it so twisted and fu*ked up because we add ugliness and envy in to it. Not that it's not ugly already, it is.

I'm an antinatalist.

 

[Younigue]

I'm an antinatalist.

Meaning no more children will fix every thing?

 

[Maxima1]

Meaning no more children will fix every thing?

Yup. No more suffering. No more people coming into existence without their consent.

 

[Younigue]

Yup. No more suffering. No more people coming into existence without their consent.

I'm against it.

 

[Maxima1]

I'm against it.

Why? No one consents! No one consents!

 

[Younigue]

Why? No one consents! No one consents!

A world full of only adults? Yuck, so boring and colorless!