Starker on 16/12/2017 at 09:44
@Kolya Yes, but we don't treat theft the same way. We don't go, "What's the big deal, it's just a purse. And what were you doing walking with a purse at a time like this anyway?" We don't doubt victims of theft in the same way. We don't say, "half of the people accused of stealing are later proven to have been innocent."
Also, we give people the chance to destroy people's lives when we give people like Weinstein free reign.
Pyrian on 16/12/2017 at 10:14
Quote Posted by Kolya
Maybe because women are people. And whatever your general view of people may be, we don't give anyone else the chance to destroy someone's life without checking the facts, solely relying on good faith not to do the wrong thing.
Wow, mate, that's some pretty heavy implied misogyny right there. Only women get the chance to ruin people's lives, eh? You can't seriously believe that, do you? Anyway, I'm going to repeat myself: "I distrust the motivation of anybody who's deeply concerned about Weinstein getting blacklisted from his career without a criminal conviction but don't express the slightest concern about the now-corroborated fact that several of his victims were blacklisted from their careers on his behalf, obviously also without any criminal conviction." Why are you all apparently unconcerned with rape victims having their lives ruined in retaliation for rejection and/or speaking out - again without any criminal conviction?
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 11:34
Wow Pyrian, I never figured you were so dim. What a disgusting strawman attempt.
I never tried to conflate the 12 charges with 12 women - I said 12
counts and I linked to the article where it's clear it's all from one person.
My point was SD had stated that if there were enough accusations he didn't think there needed to be proof in court, he was happy that the accused must be guilty. Perhaps he does mean by multiple people and this case wouldn't fit his SD 'rules of guilt' though, so I may be wrong there. Only SD can tell.
I find it amusing that you think I've tried to trap or deceive anyone. It says much more about how your mind works than mine.
Vasquez - 'grabbing tits' IS a crime and should be dealt with as such. That's sexual assault.
faetal - the central message is people ARE falsely accused of sexual crimes and to blanket beleive every accuser is an injustice. I'm not saying police shouldn't investigate but I think it's time for a change in the law; both presumed perp and victim should be anonymous until the trial is over. In the case linked we STILL don't know the name of the woman here, who should have criminal charges brought against her.
Yakoob is more or less right about the point.
It's a good thing that women are speaking up about harassment and assault, but it's important to remember that everyone involved and is a human being and establishing guilt before vilification is the just thing to do.
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09h3v2v) This week's Moral Maze was interesting and related.
faetal on 16/12/2017 at 12:44
Quote Posted by SubJeff
faetal - the central message is people ARE falsely accused of sexual crimes and to blanket believe every accuser is an injustice. I'm not saying police shouldn't investigate but I think it's time for a change in the law; both presumed perp and victim should be anonymous until the trial is over. In the case linked we STILL don't know the name of the woman here, who should have criminal charges brought against her.
Yakoob is more or less right about the point.
It's a good thing that women are speaking up about harassment and assault, but it's important to remember that everyone involved and is a human being and establishing guilt before vilification is the just thing to do.
(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09h3v2v) This week's Moral Maze was interesting and related.
I still don't understand what this has to do with the #metoo movement. Who has been improperly charged here?
How about you tell us how a woman who has been abused by someone in a position of power should act? When they know it is too far after the event to be able to get a case together, because at the time, they didn't feel bold enough to speak out.
In the case of Weinstein, there have been multiple corroborating statements, and it seems that unless there is literally a giant conspiracy against Weinstein, that everyone kind of knew that if you wanted to succeed in a production he was powerful in, you had to do what he says, or lose your career, probably with an "it'll be your word against mine" clincher. Likewise with Louis CK - multiple corroborating statements and an admission.
Picking out one news story of a pretty extreme example, without any deeper research into what proportion of assault allegations are found, or strongly suspected to be false is massive intellectual dishonesty. You have so little faith in your own argument, that you are resorting to the parlour trick of mentioning A in the same space as B and hoping that people will mistakenly link them and it will lend undue weight to your trying to discredit A.
Form a cogent argument, which doesn't resort to such tricks - else it just seems that you have a general annoyance about what is happening and are trying to build an argument which supports your perspective, instead of looking at the facts overall and then forming a conclusion.
Men in positions of power who think they can get away with coercing women into bypassing their natural desires to give them sexual favours, are now going to be exercising a little more caution since the #metoo movement. I'd call that a good thing. You have to look at the balance - some people have their lives ruined by false accusations, sure. Some people have their lives ruined by being sexually assaulted or coerced into sex acts. I think I prefer an environment which results in fewer lives being ruined, and I'd greatly estimate the number of legitimate assaults to outweigh the number of false accusations. In fact, it seems that the rate may be (
https://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297) as low as 2%. Personally, I hope men in positions of power (or men in general really) start thinking long and hard about whether the women they are interested in are really interested back and learn to just back the fuck off rather than figure out if there's a way to circumvent consent (which includes using career pressure).
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 13:19
The link to the #metoo movement was SD, in another thread, saying that if X number of women accused someone that was enough for him and forget due process, and the increased number of people coming forwards to report historical abuse has undoubtable increased. (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/24/fantasist-facing-charges-false-ted-heath-paedophile-claims/) Did you miss this? "More than 40 people came forward as a result of the televised appeal but the vast majority of the claims have been dismissed, including several made by fantasists."
In SDs eyes this is an open and shut case. 40 people? GUILTY
I'm not commenting on Weinstein et al. This has nothing do to with men in power and everything to do with reiterating that there ARE enough false accusations that we should be very cautious.
And it's not one news story. I suggest you listen to that Moral Maze and perhaps do some background research on the matter yourself. I'm aware that the majority of accusations are NOT found to be false.
I'm talking about the ones that are.
(
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217471/understanding-progression-serious-cases.pdf) This MoJ report 2012 has a figure of 12% of rape reports being false. 36/299 reported cases from a select set. There is no real definition of 'false' but even so, that's potentially at least 1 in 10 cases just serving no other purpose than wrecking someone's life.
If that doesn't concern you then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Vasquez on 16/12/2017 at 14:09
So you're saying everyone discussing this matter in the internet shouldn't believe any case of harrassment or rape is true, until it's waterproofly proven to be, in case it's false?
I know that's what you have to do in court, but come on. For every #metoo-sympathiser there still is probably at least the same amount of people who are willing to think ALL accusations are lies, because "that's how dem wimmen are, lyers and whores and out to get men, they clearly was askin' it!", so I'd say that evens out the scales.
SubJeff on 16/12/2017 at 14:23
Quote Posted by Vasquez
So you're saying everyone discussing this matter in the internet shouldn't believe any case of harrassment or rape is true, until it's waterproofly proven to be, in case it's false?
Since when did this become Strawman Forums? FFS
I'm sure there are a few idiots who believe all accusations are lies but it's pretty obvious they're idiots in the majority of cases because they use the language you've provided.
SD on 16/12/2017 at 14:23
Quote Posted by SubJeff
My point was SD had stated that if there were enough accusations he didn't think there needed to be proof in court, he was happy that the accused must be guilty. Perhaps he does mean by multiple people and this case wouldn't fit his SD 'rules of guilt' though, so I may be wrong there. Only SD can tell.
No, anyone can tell, because my words in that original thread were completely unambiguous:
...while allegations of harassment from one person could be malicious and false, allegations from multiple sources reduce that likelihood considerably.Given that you continued to disagree with me in that thread based on this very knowledge, it's hard to escape the idea that Pyrian is right to question the honesty of your post here.
(Not to mention that I didn't even say that someone "must be guilty" if accused by several people, merely that, on the basis of probability, I am happy to treat them as if they did it until such a time as it is evident they did not)
SD on 16/12/2017 at 14:34
Quote Posted by SubJeff
The link to the #metoo movement was SD, in another thread, saying that if X number of women accused someone that was enough for him and forget due process, and the increased number of people coming forwards to report historical abuse has undoubtable increased. (
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/24/fantasist-facing-charges-false-ted-heath-paedophile-claims/) Did you miss this? "More than 40 people came forward as a result of the televised appeal but the vast majority of the claims have been dismissed, including several made by fantasists."
In SDs eyes this is an open and shut case. 40 people? GUILTY
Stop misrepresenting me. Not once have I said that due process should be ignored. I made it perfectly clear that this was my own personal barometer, and nothing to do with "due process":
I am not a court of law - I don't profess to be a court of law - and I do not possess the means to impose judgements upon anyone, so there is no requirement for me to arrive at conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. Probability is sufficient for me to arrive at a conclusion that is satisfactory for my own purposes - "in my book", so to speak. And since I have no reason to believe that most accusations of wrongdoing are not true, it follows that most accusations of wrongdoing are true, and I therefore shall treat them as if they were true, unless and until I have good reason not to.The idea that we should all demand legal standard near 100% proof of things during the normal conduct of our daily lives is patently ludicrous.
Given that the previous topic on this subject was closed, I don't really understand what the purpose of this thread is.
Vasquez on 16/12/2017 at 14:50
I'm just trying to find your point, SubJeff. No one here is saying that false accusations never happen. No one is saying false accusations are OK, because clearly they're not.
We all agree that in a court of law no one should be found guilty if there's not enough proof. The fact that there's a risk of this sometimes happening, of any crime, is and should be a concern. But we're not a jury nor judges (well, some of us might be). Do you want us to sign a petition for the justice system to REALLY TAKE THIS 12% thing SERIOUSLY? Which I'm pretty sure is already done, case by case.