laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 11, 2019 20:30:25 GMT -5
No, that is not what laterbloomer is saying. You have a bias that you're reading into her comments.
Since laterbloomer seems intent on ducking the questions, and you know precisely what she is saying, maybe you can communicate her feelings for her. Speaking of false accusations...I have answered every question you asked. You not liking my answers is a different problem, and yours, not mine.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 11, 2019 20:36:38 GMT -5
The question was whether she should have to provide actual details. Or as laterbloomer believes, if she can just say "This guy sexually assaulted me, that's all I'm saying, believe me because I say so since women don't lie". No time, no place, no details...and then it should be up to the man to prove that throughout his entire lifetime every day of his was free of sexual assault of this person.As an example, I thought the Kavanaugh thing was fine as noted earlier in the thread...neither can prove it one way or the other definitively, but the accuser provided details which at least the accused can perhaps respond to or reasonably offer up proof/likelihood of innocence based on a specific accusation. They at least have a method of defending themselves more than a "did not" "did so" where laterbloomer and apparently others think the answer is "believe the women, women don't lie". ETA: Specifically, is it reasonable to be "guilty until proven innocent", if by the very nature of the accusation there is literally zero way you can prove your innocence due to the nebulousness of the accusation (no time, no place, etc...ignoring that even with that stuff it might still be super difficult to prove innocence in general). Also specifically, there cannot even be a weighing of the testimony by others, because the testimony of each is nothing more than "did so" "did not" due a complete lack of any details on the accusation. No, that is not what laterbloomer is saying. You have a bias that you're reading into her comments.
Thank you!!!!
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 11, 2019 20:38:01 GMT -5
So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? Outside the court of law it's not about guilt or innocence. It's about people being able to share their experiences and hopefully help others without being penalized and stigmatized. In general interactions I take everything with a grain of salt. Would you read a yelp review and say "PROVE IT"? No, you would read a couple more, see the general consensus, if the complaints or accolades have any bearing on your own expectations, then you proceed as you see fit. You worded it so well!!!!
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 11, 2019 20:40:41 GMT -5
They are not being thrown from the shadows. You know exactly who said it and what they said. The women are not being protected from repercussions for speaking out, they are just being protected for being charged for speaking out. Let's put the onus on men being the ones that have to be convincing. "This person's lying, believe me because I'm such a nice guy" should not be accepted by any intelligent individual as a valid reason to believe you. In the US, guilt has to be proven, not innocence Do you think all people accused need to prove their innocence or just men? Do we start locking people up with no evidence other than someone saying they did something? We aren't talking about being in a courtroom. And you and hoops seem to save that innocent until proven guilty for the men. You seem pretty quick to say that women are lying.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,392
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 11, 2019 20:45:29 GMT -5
Even within our justice system we have different standards for "guilty" and "responsible". Our society can have yet a third standard. Kavanaugh was clearly a dick.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 12, 2019 12:01:12 GMT -5
In the US, guilt has to be proven, not innocence Do you think all people accused need to prove their innocence or just men? Do we start locking people up with no evidence other than someone saying they did something? We aren't talking about being in a courtroom. And you and hoops seem to save that innocent until proven guilty for the men. You seem pretty quick to say that women are lying. I'm not saying either person is lying. I'm saying I do not automatically believe anyone, outside of someone I personally know, love and trust. I will never believe in assuming someone is guilty of a crime on nothing more than the words of another. And that goes for whether the accuser is a man or woman. It is just in the case we are talking about the accuser being a woman.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 12, 2019 12:05:48 GMT -5
So you think outside of the courtroom...it should be "guilty until proven innocent"? You are the one saying the woman must be lying. Do you have any proof of that? The result of your logic is that if a woman can't prove that a man assaulted her she is not allowed to say anything. Or she has to bare her soul for your satisfaction. And I say she doesn't. No one should make false accusations. But if a woman has been assaulted she can talk about it as much or as little as she is comfortable with. You seem to be assuming that if she isn't willing to lay out the details of a humiliating and traumatic event to your satisfaction she must be lying. I vehemently disagree and encourage woman that have been assaulted to speak up to whatever level they are comfortable doing so. Anyone that makes public claims about another person without evidence and if those claim hard the accused, the accuser should get sued for defamation of character.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 12, 2019 12:06:15 GMT -5
Even within our justice system we have different standards for "guilty" and "responsible". Our society can have yet a third standard. Kavanaugh was clearly a dick. Being a dick does not meet he raped or sexually assaulted someone.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 12, 2019 13:00:47 GMT -5
I'm so over people dismissing what victims say as not being evidence. Victim testimony is absolutely considered evidence in a trial. It may not be the evidence YOU deem to require, but stop saying that a victim's account is not evidence. Considering rape and sexual assault are not often done with a crowd present, victims statements are often the only evidence.
You don't need evidence. You need something beyond what a victim says - because you don't believe what she says.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 12, 2019 13:33:55 GMT -5
I'm so over people dismissing what victims say as not being evidence. Victim testimony is absolutely considered evidence in a trial. It may not be the evidence YOU deem to require, but stop saying that a victim's account is not evidence. Considering rape and sexual assault are not often done with a crowd present, victims statements are often the only evidence. You don't need evidence. You need something beyond what a victim says - because you don't believe what she says. Should we convict all people based on nothing more than a victim statement or just those accused on sexual assault?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 12, 2019 13:45:06 GMT -5
I'm so over people dismissing what victims say as not being evidence. Victim testimony is absolutely considered evidence in a trial. It may not be the evidence YOU deem to require, but stop saying that a victim's account is not evidence. Considering rape and sexual assault are not often done with a crowd present, victims statements are often the only evidence. You don't need evidence. You need something beyond what a victim says - because you don't believe what she says. Should we convict all people based on nothing more than a victim statement or just those accused on sexual assault? I was taking issue with your use of "I need evidence" over and over again.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 47,220
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 12, 2019 13:52:57 GMT -5
I'm so over people dismissing what victims say as not being evidence. Victim testimony is absolutely considered evidence in a trial. It may not be the evidence YOU deem to require, but stop saying that a victim's account is not evidence. Considering rape and sexual assault are not often done with a crowd present, victims statements are often the only evidence. You don't need evidence. You need something beyond what a victim says - because you don't believe what she says. Should we convict all people based on nothing more than a victim statement or just those accused on sexual assault? People have gotten convicted of murder based on just victim statement/witness testimony. Quite a few people on death row have been found innocent thanks to DNA. Should we stop believing victims and the families of those crimes unless we personally know them?
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 12, 2019 13:55:57 GMT -5
Should we convict all people based on nothing more than a victim statement or just those accused on sexual assault? I was taking issue with your use of "I need evidence" over and over again. But you didn't answer my question. Should one person's statement of an account be enough to convict a person? No evidence of a crime, no other witnesses, basically nothing beyond one person saying another person committed a crime. and "I" don't need evidence unless I am on the jury. But I hope to god that a jury needs evidence before convicting a person and I hope that evidence is more than just a he said/she said. Because I sure as shit never want to be on the receiving end of a sentencing for something I didn't do based on nothing more than one person's statement I have had more than one liberal tell me that they are against the death penalty because they could not handle even one wrongfully convicted person being put to death. Granted, we aren't talking death but a person convicted of rape is doing some hard time. So I would rather run the risk of letting a guilty person go rather than locking someone up for years and years that was wrongly convicted. And this has nothing to do with the sex of the accused.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 12, 2019 13:57:28 GMT -5
Should we convict all people based on nothing more than a victim statement or just those accused on sexual assault? People have gotten convicted of murder based on just victim statement/witness testimony. Quite a few people on death row have been found innocent thanks to DNA. Should we stop believing victims and the families of those crimes unless we personally know them? Aren't you proving my point? They were convicted based on victim statement or witness testimony and were convicted with no other evidence...then they were found to actually be INNOCENT! So again, I say that no one should be convicted without evidence
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 12, 2019 14:57:54 GMT -5
I was taking issue with your use of "I need evidence" over and over again. But you didn't answer my question. Should one person's statement of an account be enough to convict a person? No evidence of a crime, no other witnesses, basically nothing beyond one person saying another person committed a crime. and "I" don't need evidence unless I am on the jury. But I hope to god that a jury needs evidence before convicting a person and I hope that evidence is more than just a he said/she said. Because I sure as shit never want to be on the receiving end of a sentencing for something I didn't do based on nothing more than one person's statement I have had more than one liberal tell me that they are against the death penalty because they could not handle even one wrongfully convicted person being put to death. Granted, we aren't talking death but a person convicted of rape is doing some hard time. So I would rather run the risk of letting a guilty person go rather than locking someone up for years and years that was wrongly convicted. And this has nothing to do with the sex of the accused. A witness or victim's statement IS evidence. And yes people are convicted based on testimony. 99% of rapists are already running around free and able to rape again.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 12, 2019 21:04:13 GMT -5
You are the one saying the woman must be lying. Do you have any proof of that? The result of your logic is that if a woman can't prove that a man assaulted her she is not allowed to say anything. Or she has to bare her soul for your satisfaction. And I say she doesn't. No one should make false accusations. But if a woman has been assaulted she can talk about it as much or as little as she is comfortable with. You seem to be assuming that if she isn't willing to lay out the details of a humiliating and traumatic event to your satisfaction she must be lying. I vehemently disagree and encourage woman that have been assaulted to speak up to whatever level they are comfortable doing so. Anyone that makes public claims about another person without evidence and if those claim hard the accused, the accuser should get sued for defamation of character. No, that puts the advantage firmly with abusers. As long as they are careful about doing it in private their victims aren't even allowed to talk about it. Your comment makes the assumption that if a victim can't prove it she is lying.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 12, 2019 21:13:46 GMT -5
We aren't talking about being in a courtroom. And you and hoops seem to save that innocent until proven guilty for the men. You seem pretty quick to say that women are lying. I'm not saying either person is lying. I'm saying I do not automatically believe anyone, outside of someone I personally know, love and trust. I will never believe in assuming someone is guilty of a crime on nothing more than the words of another. And that goes for whether the accuser is a man or woman. It is just in the case we are talking about the accuser being a woman. LOL you make it pretty clear you don't give the benefit of the doubt to the woman that she may be telling the truth. But that's fine. Believe what you want but don't punish an assault victim for speaking up just because she doesn't do it the way you want her to.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2019 5:51:17 GMT -5
I'm not saying either person is lying. I'm saying I do not automatically believe anyone, outside of someone I personally know, love and trust. I will never believe in assuming someone is guilty of a crime on nothing more than the words of another. And that goes for whether the accuser is a man or woman. It is just in the case we are talking about the accuser being a woman. LOL you make it pretty clear you don't give the benefit of the doubt to the woman that she may be telling the truth. But that's fine. Believe what you want but don't punish an assault victim for speaking up just because she doesn't do it the way you want her to. Because that is not how the legal system should work. An accuser should not get “the benefit of doubt”. So someone should go to jail because we want to give an accuser the benefit of doubt? Or is this only for accusations of rape or sexual assault?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,392
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 13, 2019 8:43:23 GMT -5
LOL you make it pretty clear you don't give the benefit of the doubt to the woman that she may be telling the truth. But that's fine. Believe what you want but don't punish an assault victim for speaking up just because she doesn't do it the way you want her to. Because that is not how the legal system should work. An accuser should not get “the benefit of doubt”. So someone should go to jail because we want to give an accuser the benefit of doubt? Or is this only for accusations of rape or sexual assault? When you aren't on the jury, maybe listen to both sides equally, and maybe not make a judgement call. That gives both sides equal footing.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 13, 2019 8:55:44 GMT -5
Actually, it's imperative to listen to both sides when you're on the jury.
And it's not just "the benefit of doubt" there's also scientific evidence (there's that word again) that the overwhelming number of those that report a rape are telling the truth.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 13, 2019 12:53:18 GMT -5
LOL you make it pretty clear you don't give the benefit of the doubt to the woman that she may be telling the truth. But that's fine. Believe what you want but don't punish an assault victim for speaking up just because she doesn't do it the way you want her to. Because that is not how the legal system should work. An accuser should not get “the benefit of doubt”. So someone should go to jail because we want to give an accuser the benefit of doubt? Or is this only for accusations of rape or sexual assault? Again, we are not talking about criminal charges. and yes, the accuser in any crime gets presumed to be telling the truth and you have to prove they are lying.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 13, 2019 13:07:08 GMT -5
Because that is not how the legal system should work. An accuser should not get “the benefit of doubt”. So someone should go to jail because we want to give an accuser the benefit of doubt? Or is this only for accusations of rape or sexual assault? Again, we are not talking about criminal charges. and yes, the accuser in any crime gets presumed to be telling the truth and you have to prove they are lying. So we know longer believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Now someone accused has to prove they are innocent?
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Jun 13, 2019 13:25:36 GMT -5
Again, we are not talking about criminal charges. and yes, the accuser in any crime gets presumed to be telling the truth and you have to prove they are lying. So we know longer believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Now someone accused has to prove they are innocent? Witnesses are considered proof. Someone seeing you commit the crime is considered proof. We call them eye witnesses. In general it is up to the defense to prove an eye witness is lying. You keep dragging this into a discussion about criminal charges. There is space to say you were assaulted without having to charge the man.
|
|