The Joe Biden sexual assault allegation

[HumblePie]

Like I said reading comprehension seems to be an issue with you. I’ll repeat what I said but I don’t have a lot of hope for you: Biden wasn’t a factor in determining if these claims were legitimate.

Like I said, these claims aren't being tried in a court of law at the moment. They are being tried in a court of opinion. Tara claims he assaulted her, and Joe claims she didn't. People are willing to point to her past to judge her character in this thread, but aren't willing to do the same for Joe. That is hypocrisy. You don't seem to get that I DO NOT CARE about the claim of assault by Tara here. I just find the hypocrisy reprehensible here. You're reading comprehension is atrocious here because you have failed to understand this through numerous posts.

 

[HumblePie]

This is false, none of those individuals accused Biden of sexual assault. If you think otherwise please quote the exact passage from your link that you think describes a sexual assault.

Otherwise can you explain why did you feel it was necessary to lie about what other people have claimed about Biden? Or were you just too dumb to read your own link?

WTF? Do you not understand the definition of sexual assault? Smelling hair and inappropriate touching touching claims ARE sexual assault claims. It doesn't require penetration to be a sexual assault. I once part of a jury that putting a guy away for rubbing the shoulder of a girl he wanted to get with when she told him no. It was certainly sexual assault and he went prison for it.

 

[ivwshane]

Multiple people had said Joe Biden had previous sexual assaults, not just that one. This is what evidence is, although it explains a lot that you don't know this.

(https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/joe-biden-inappropriate-touching-accusations-list.html)

Again, I don't give a shit about the claims of sexual assault, but you seem to keep wanting to argue that strawman post. I am pointing out your hypocrisy and you don't seem to like it.

Face it bruh, your reading comprehension problem at best, or outright shillery with strawman and ad hominem posts have led you to being owned here. You might come off as less dishonest if you admit your mistakes on assumptions you made about my posts and apologize. This forum knows that will never happen. You aren't capable of it are you?

You don’t care about the main point of this whole thread? Color me surprised.

As far as joe making women uncomfortable, you do realize that not only has no one denied these claims but Biden himself has acknowledged his touchy feely ways and has apologized for it.

What you are engaging in is a straw man and since you are so against logical fallacies, that makes you a hypocrite as well.

 

[ivwshane]

Like I said, these claims aren't being tried in a court of law at the moment. They are being tried in a court of opinion. Tara claims he assaulted her, and Joe claims she didn't. People are willing to point to her past to judge her character in this thread, but aren't willing to do the same for Joe. That is hypocrisy. You don't seem to get that I DO NOT CARE about the claim of assault by Tara here. I just find the hypocrisy reprehensible here. You're reading comprehension is atrocious here because you have failed to understand this through numerous posts.

No, once again you creating a straw man. We have multiple pages of people discussing and debunking reades claims. Why do you continue to misrepresent people’s reasoning for not believing reade?

Hypocrite

 

[dank69]

Like I said, these claims aren't being tried in a court of law at the moment. They are being tried in a court of opinion. Tara claims he assaulted her, and Joe claims she didn't. People are willing to point to her past to judge her character in this thread, but aren't willing to do the same for Joe. That is hypocrisy. You don't seem to get that I DO NOT CARE about the claim of assault by Tara here. I just find the hypocrisy reprehensible here. You're reading comprehension is atrocious here because you have failed to understand this through numerous posts.

Joe is a blockhead politician, but he isn't claiming someone assaulted him. When he does, you can bitch about what you think his character flaws are all you want. You need to spend a year actually studying logic and reason because you are really bad at the fundamentals, like who has the burden of proof. The fact that you think the burden of proof only applies in a legal context and not simple discussion is bafflingly stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

WTF? Do you not understand the definition of sexual assault? Smelling hair and inappropriate touching touching claims ARE sexual assault claims. It doesn't require penetration to be a sexual assault.

Smelling someone’s hair is sexual assault? Is this a parody post?

If it’s not some sort of self parody please link me to a sexual assault conviction for smelling hair. Just one will do.

 

[HumblePie]

You don’t care about the main point of this whole thread? Color me surprised.

As far as joe making women uncomfortable, you do realize that not only has no one denied these claims but Biden himself has acknowledged his touchy feely ways and has apologized for it.

What you are engaging in is a straw man and since you are so against logical fallacies, that makes you a hypocrite as well.

I came i saying I didn't care about the main point. My original comment was about the hypocrisy going on here. Go read it if you don't believe it. I never engaged a strawman because I never made one to counter someone else's claim in this thread. I made an out of the blue comment from the get go and fskimospy and others like you do what you always do. Which is not to read my post and make strawman arguments, deflect, and do ad hominen attacks. I said not a word in response in my first post to anyone else's post directly. It was straight up talking about the hypocrisy. I didn't know there is a rule that I have to only talk about the main point of a thread in this forum. Is there such a one?

 

[dank69]

I came i saying I didn't care about the main point. My original comment was about the hypocrisy going on here. Go read it if you don't believe it. I never engaged a strawman because I never made one to counter someone else's claim in this thread. I made an out of the blue comment from the get go and fskimospy and others like you do what you always do. Which is not to read my post and make strawman arguments, deflect, and do ad hominen attacks. I said not a word in response in my first post to anyone else's post directly. It was straight up talking about the hypocrisy. I didn't know there is a rule that I have to only talk about the main point of a thread in this forum. Is there such a one?

Everything looks like hypocrisy when you don't understand any of it.

 

[HumblePie]

Joe is a blockhead politician, but he isn't claiming someone assaulted him. When he does, you can bitch about what you think his character flaws are all you want. You need to spend a year actually studying logic and reason because you are really bad at the fundamentals, like who has the burden of proof. The fact that you think the burden of proof only applies in a legal context and not simple discussion is bafflingly stupid.

You don't understand court of opinion do you? Its about perception and no burden of proof. No one gives a shit about that or the majority of posts on these forums wouldn't exist. The fact you don't understand this concept is baffingly stupid

 

[mect]

Considering her claim rests entirely on her credibility and she clearly has credibility issues why is it character assassination to point them out?

It isn't necessarily. It depends on how one points them out. Its fine to state that she changed her story (although this isn't highly relevant in my opinion, considering this is not uncommon for sexual assault victims). It is fine to state that she committed fraud. It is not okay to say she's a slimy, lying grifter whose just out to pull down Biden.

In my opinion, what people should focus much more on is the study done by PBS Newshour where they interviewed 74 former Biden staffers, none of whom experienced any level of sexual harassment.

 

[HumblePie]

Smelling someone’s hair is sexual assault? Is this a parody post?

If it’s not some sort of self parody please link me to a sexual assault conviction for smelling hair. Just one will do.

If the touching is unwanted, it certainly is sexual assault. How the hell are you this ignorant of the law?

 

[dank69]

You don't understand court of opinion do you? Its about perception and no burden of proof. No one gives a shit about that or the majority of posts on these forums wouldn't exist. The fact you don't understand this concept is baffingly stupid

The court of opinion involves two types of people: those that understand how to reason, and people like you. It's easy to convince people like you to think and say stupid things.

 

[fskimospy]

It isn't necessarily. It depends on how one points them out. Its fine to state that she changed her story (although this isn't highly relevant in my opinion, considering this is not uncommon for sexual assault victims). It is fine to state that she committed fraud. It is not okay to say she's a slimy, lying grifter whose just out to pull down Biden.

In my opinion, what people should focus much more on is the study done by PBS Newshour where they interviewed 74 former Biden staffers, none of whom experienced any level of sexual harassment.

I don’t think anyone is saying she did it solely to get Biden but considering she’s had numerous people from throughout her life say she lied to them to get money why is calling her a grifter wrong? Isn’t that what she was doing?

 

[ivwshane]

WTF? Do you not understand the definition of sexual assault? Smelling hair and inappropriate touching touching claims ARE sexual assault claims. It doesn't require penetration to be a sexual assault. I once part of a jury that putting a guy away for rubbing the shoulder of a girl he wanted to get with when she told him no. It was certainly sexual assault and he went prison for it.

You really are one dumb mother fucker!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2017/12/21/whats-the-difference-between-sexual-assault-and-harassment-lets-break-it-down/

 

[dank69]

It isn't necessarily. It depends on how one points them out. Its fine to state that she changed her story (although this isn't highly relevant in my opinion, considering this is not uncommon for sexual assault victims). It is fine to state that she committed fraud. It is not okay to say she's a slimy, lying grifter whose just out to pull down Biden.

In my opinion, what people should focus much more on is the study done by PBS Newshour where they interviewed 74 former Biden staffers, none of whom experienced any level of sexual harassment.

Pretty much everyone that has known her has described her as a grifter, so why is it not okay to call her a grifter at this point?

 

[fskimospy]

If the touching is unwanted, it certainly is sexual assault. How the hell are you this ignorant of the law?

Well then with your expert knowledge of the law it should be easy to link us some sexual assault convictions for behavior similar to what is described in your link.

Got an ETA on them?

 

[mect]

Pretty much everyone that has known her has described her as a grifter, so why is it not okay to call her a grifter at this point?

Because she is now a public figure that people who have been victims of sexual assault will relate to, whether Biden is guilty or not. The more people publicly label her, the fewer people will report their sexual assaults.

 

[ivwshane]

It isn't necessarily. It depends on how one points them out. Its fine to state that she changed her story (although this isn't highly relevant in my opinion, considering this is not uncommon for sexual assault victims). It is fine to state that she committed fraud. It is not okay to say she's a slimy, lying grifter whose just out to pull down Biden.

In my opinion, what people should focus much more on is the study done by PBS Newshour where they interviewed 74 former Biden staffers, none of whom experienced any level of sexual harassment.

Yeah that was already covered. Maybe you should fucking read the thread before you claim people are engaged in character assasination.

 

[HumblePie]

The court of opinion involves two types of people: those that understand how to reason, and people like you. It's easy to convince people like you to think and say stupid things.

HAHA! try again. Court of opinion is everyone. It is the public. If you think the public at large cares about burden of proof before formulating stances on a subject is being willfully blind to the truth of the world.

I am not saying that people that do that are right. Do not make a strawman or an improper conflation. I am stating that in the public court of opinion to most people, burden of proof is meaningless. The fact you keep trying to argue that random people don't form opinions and assumptions based on nothing is crazy. That is all I was saying and you fucking argued against it!

Again, I never cared about any burden of proof Tara needs for her claim. I don't care about her claim. I have no opinion on the claim nor care to form one. I pointed out hypocrisy and pointed out fskimospy doing what he always does. You seemed to take umbrage to something like that and went off into lala land making arguments against your own strawman.

 

[dank69]

Because she is now a public figure that people who have been victims of sexual assault will relate to, whether Biden is guilty or not. The more people publicly label her, the fewer people will report their sexual assaults.

So because she seems to have falsely accused a person of sexual assault she should get special protection?

 

[mect]

So because she seems to have falsely accused a person of sexual assault she should get special protection?

If you care about others that have been sexually assaulted, yes. And all that special protection entails is just being respectful in discourse. Is that really that extreme?

 

[ivwshane]

So because she seems to have falsely accused a person of sexual assault she should get special protection?

What he’s done is adopt starbuck‘s characterization of the “me too” movement which is to believe women without question and apparently questioning means you are either a rape apologist or engaged in character assassination.

 

[fskimospy]

What he’s done is adopt starbuck‘s characterization of the “me too” movement which is to believe women without question and apparently questioning means you are either a rape apologist or engaged in character assassination.

I don’t think he’s doing that, he’s saying that the discourse regarding her should be kinder.

I personally disagree and think it’s fine to call a grifter a grifter but he’s not going the Starbuck route.

 

[dank69]

HAHA! try again. Court of opinion is everyone. It is the public. If you think the public at large cares about burden of proof before formulating stances on a subject is being willfully blind to the truth of the world.

I am not saying that people that do that are right. Do not make a strawman or an improper conflation. I am stating that in the public court of opinion to most people, burden of proof is meaningless. The fact you keep trying to argue that random people don't form opinions and assumptions based on nothing is crazy. That is all I was saying and you fucking argued against it!

Again, I never cared about any burden of proof Tara needs for her claim. I don't care about her claim. I have no opinion on the claim nor care to form one. I pointed out hypocrisy and pointed out fskimospy doing what he always does. You seemed to take umbrage to something like that and went off into lala land making arguments against your own strawman.

Yes if you ignore relevant information you can make anything into hypocrisy:

Person A: You should wash your hands frequently with hot water and soap.
Person B: Okay, wash your hands with boiling water.
Person A: What? No, I don't want to burn my hands.
Person B: But boiling water is hot water, what are you some sort of hypocrite?

This is actually a perfect analogy of Starbuck's retarded thinking, now that I see it on the screen. Believe women becomes believe all women including serial liars, the same way that wash with hot water becomes wash with all hot water, including boiling water.

Anyway, you acknowledge that "people who do that are [not] right." I agree. I don't care about the people who do that. If you want to ignore burden of proof, then you are a person who does that, and that is wrong.

 

[HumblePie]

Well then with your expert knowledge of the law it should be easy to link us some sexual assault convictions for behavior similar to what is described in your link.

Got an ETA on them?

Really are you going down this road? wow, just wow...

It's not groping or fondling – it is sexual assault

Using euphemistic language downplays the severity of an offence and enforces a dangerous message: it isn’t a big deal, and victims won’t be taken seriously

www.theguardian.com

By not pointing out how unacceptable this culture is, we become complicit in the message that victims are already receiving loud and clear: this isn’t really a big deal, you won’t be taken seriously, it’s not worth going to the police. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, one of the most frequently cited reasons for not reporting sexual offences is that they seemed “too trivial” to report.

People convicted of sexual assault crimes of inappropriate sexual contact don't tend to make the news. It is a very under reported crime. Laws also vary in the states for definitions, but there is always lesser degrees of misdemeanors for various acts of inappropriate sexually based touching. Some states it is a very minor offense and some it is more major.

(https://feltg.com/its-called-sexual-misconduct-for-a-reason/)

As for a specific example:

(https://www.lansingstatejournal.com...buse-molest-jury-washington-woods/3853416002/)

Daley was known to constantly touch students; giving a pat on the back, resting his hand on a shoulder or giving a high-five or side hug was not uncommon for him, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Christina Johnson said.

So accusations of smelling hair, touching, kissing, and other unwanted sexually based touching are all accusations leveled previously at Biden.