• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rape victim is coveted status - George Wills

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
justoh said:
If this were true generally then it would seem as though there wouldn't be much of a point to the jury selection/elimination process. No point in screening for bias etc. When it's the real deal then everyone will just suspend any opinion they're likely to express on a mere internet forum and adopt a far more objective, heightened standard. It seems more likely that people will carry any biases they have over into the deliberations.
Click to expand...

You have ridiculous standards. People are going to have opinions on issues that come up, regardless of the level of proof provided. To expect that every opinion ever formed has to be beyond a reasonable doubt is quite absurd. We need only reinforce to juries that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for public opinion is far, far lower.
 
Brainonska511 said:
You have ridiculous standards. People are going to have opinions on issues that come up, regardless of the level of proof provided. To expect that every opinion ever formed has to be beyond a reasonable doubt is quite absurd. We need only reinforce to juries that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for public opinion is far, far lower.
Click to expand...

There's no standard for public opinion. I'm not trying to be difficult. This is probably the only controversial thread i've been (mostly) serious in for a while.

edit: no official standard, though, again, I see no value in someone's claimed ability to adjust their opinion based on possible consequences. And public opinion is important as it drives the laws, obviously.
 
Last edited:
shira said:
I'm saying that all we have are the words quoted in the OP. You seem to be assuming that those three sentences are everything she said. And you seem to be assuming that she hasn't already included additional information in her statement to police that provides a context to those three sentences. Finally, the hypothetical contextual statement I imagined in no way contradicts the three sentences she is quoted as having said.
Click to expand...

Okay, you think what you want then. I think saying that was tired and just wanted to go to sleep absolutely contradicts any notion that she felt threatened and afraid. If you don't think so there's nothing more to be said here.
 
Exophase said:
Okay, you think what you want then. I think saying that was tired and just wanted to go to sleep absolutely contradicts any notion that she felt threatened and afraid. If you don't think so there's nothing more to be said here.
Click to expand...

That only speaks to compulsion, which isn't required for sexual assault in PA, or even lower categories of rape elsewhere, as we've learned. Consent is still at issue, but it isn't the case that consent necessarily wasn't manifested, and that he's obviously guilty, even based only on her partial, poorly recollected testimony so far. Her expression of no isn't dispositive, even in the most no-means-no of jurisdictions, despite what some ridiculously named and hypersensitive "anti-sexual assault" (lulz) organization's website might have one believe.
 
Last edited:
Brainonska511 said:
You have ridiculous standards. People are going to have opinions on issues that come up, regardless of the level of proof provided. To expect that every opinion ever formed has to be beyond a reasonable doubt is quite absurd. We need only reinforce to juries that the standard for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard for public opinion is far, far lower.
Click to expand...

The evidence needed to judge someone is more than just hearsay from one side. If that wasn't so I could say I saw you molesting children.

You are just like the people who went on the public witch hunt and condemned that poor innocent boy in the Boston bombing incident. Same with the Duke Lacrosse case, you and those like you were the ones engaging in the public witch hunt of innocent boys. You are no different than the Nancy Graces of the world.
 
Last edited:
DCal430 said:
You are a child molester.

See my words alone is enough to say you guilty.
Click to expand...

That's a conclusion without any premises. It's not an argument. She has an argument, or could be witness to one for the state.

(But yes, your statement that i'm a child molester is a statement that i'm a child molester).

You said her words alone don't constitute evidence, when they do.

DCal430 said:
No one should be assumed guilty, without having any say or ability to defend themselves. Yet so many here condemn this man without any real evidence, because her words alone are not evidence.
Click to expand...

How is it not? It's often the only evidence they need, as it's often the only evidence available.
 
DCal430 said:
The evidence needed to judge someone is more than just hearsay from one side. If that wasn't so I could say I saw you molesting children.

You are just like the people who went on the public witch hunt and condemned that poor innocent boy in the Boston bombing incident. Same with the Duke Lacrosse case, you and those like you were the ones engaging in the public witch hunt of innocent boys. You are no different than the Nancy Graces of the world.
Click to expand...

Well that's more of an argument, at least.
 
justoh said:
That's a conclusion without any premises. It's not an argument. She has an argument, or could be witness to one for the state.

(But yes, your statement that i'm a child molester is a statement that i'm a child molester).

You said her words alone don't constitute evidence, when they do.



How is it not? It's often the only evidence they need, as it's often the only evidence available.
Click to expand...

That is wrong, you can't convict someone based solely on words.

You are wrong her words are no different than mines. They have the same weight.

I can easily say I saw you molesting children at the park.

In fact people have been arrested and jailed for repeatedly claiming they were raped when no evidence was found to support this. Because they are defaming someone who the law presumes is innocent.
 
Last edited:
DCal430 said:
That is wrong, you can't convict someone based solely on words.

You are wrong her words are no different than mines. They have the same weight.

I can easily say I saw you molesting children at the park.

In fact people have been arrested and jailed for repeatedly claiming they were raped when no evidence was found to support this. Because they are defaming someone who the law presumes is innocent.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. And her own statement isn't hearsay, you know, since she's the one making the statement? People also don't go to jail for defamation. What's wrong with you?
 
WackyDan said:
At that point she should have broken up with him. Enduring an abusive relationship though complicated, isn't rape.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Just to claim that it is though is really making a point I have stated previously.

Feminists are trying to turn rape into a way for women to control relationships and/or get revenge on men who are assholes to them.
 
justoh said:
Sure you can. And her own statement isn't hearsay, you know, since she's the one making the statement? People also don't go to jail for defamation. What's wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Yes they can, a court can order you to stop, because it is considered harassment. If you don't, you go to jail, because it is a CRIME. You obviously don't understand the law.
 
nehalem256 said:
I agree 100%. Just to claim that it is though is really making a point I have stated previously.

Feminists are trying to turn rape into a way for women to control relationships and/or get revenge on men who are assholes to them.
Click to expand...

The mind boggles.
 
Veliko said:
The mind boggles.
Click to expand...

Multiple people in this thread have stated that if you don't want to be accused of rape don't be an asshole to women

Which is kinda silly

I would have thought that the only thing you would need to do to avoid being accused of rape would be to not rape someone. At least if we are going to go by the standard liberal line that a woman wouldn't falsely claim she was raped.

Or I guess if one is to believe that if you nicely rape a woman she won't accuse you of raping her. But I think such an idea would deserve a 😵😵😵😵
 
nehalem256 said:
Multiple people in this thread have stated that if you don't want to be accused of rape don't be an asshole to women

Which is kinda silly

I would have thought that the only thing you would need to do to avoid being accused of rape would be to not rape someone. At least if we are going to go by the standard liberal line that a woman wouldn't falsely claim she was raped.

Or I guess if one is to believe that if you nicely rape a woman she won't accuse you of raping her. But I think such an idea would deserve a 😵😵😵😵
Click to expand...

Oooooooooh, you're taking things completely and utterly literally and dealing only in absolutes.

Which is kinda silly.
 
nehalem256 said:
Multiple people in this thread have stated that if you don't want to be accused of rape don't be an asshole to women

Which is kinda silly

I would have thought that the only thing you would need to do to avoid being accused of rape would be to not rape someone. At least if we are going to go by the standard liberal line that a woman wouldn't falsely claim she was raped.

Or I guess if one is to believe that if you nicely rape a woman she won't accuse you of raping her. But I think such an idea would deserve a 😵😵😵😵
Click to expand...
You continue to insist that "rape" means being physically overpowered, or being threatened with death or severe bodily harm to force compliance, and then to be sexually penetrated against the person's will. With such a limited concept of what rape really is, it's understandable that you're confused.

Maybe if you educated yourself on what "rape" really means - specifically, look up the definitions of the various degrees of rape - you would be less confused and would make more coherent posts.
 
shira said:
You continue to insist that "rape" means being physically overpowered, or being threatened with death or severe bodily harm to force compliance, and then to be sexually penetrated against the person's will. With such a limited concept of what rape really is, it's understandable that you're confused.
Click to expand...

So you mean pretty much the definition of rape defined by the Pennsylvania legislature?😕

shira said:
Maybe if you educated yourself on what "rape" really means - specifically, look up the definitions of the various degrees of rape - you would be less confused and would make more coherent posts.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that liberals want to make the concept of what "rape" is so ambiguous that pretty much any sexual encounter can be described as rape.

Probably goes back to the whole "all heterosexual sex is rape" thing that some feminists believe in. Only repackaged so as to not sound so immediately stupid.

It also seems you are standing by the if you don't want to be accused of rape don't be an asshole.

So do you think being an asshole is rape? Or is it that you think women will falsely accuse assholes of being rapists to get revenge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top