[andyt]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

"Inconvenience" ??

So, spending a couple years behind bars, losing your house, job, wife, having your name always come up in a Google search next to the word 'murder' or 'rape' . . . is an inconvenience?

Look at how he whined when he was accused of slander....he's a f*cking hypocrite.

Hmm? Yeah, that was an inconvenience, especially in comparison to the more extreme things I bother myself with.

I'd take that accusation of slander over a lot of things.

Then don't cry about it. To eliminate slander we need to sacrifice a few people who are falsely accused of it. Just take the accusers word for it that slander happened.

[Public_Domain]

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Look at how he whined when he was accused of slander....he's a f*cking hypocrite.

Hmm? Yeah, that was an inconvenience, especially in comparison to the more extreme things I bother myself with.

I'd take that accusation of slander over a lot of things.

Then don't cry about it. To eliminate slander we need to sacrifice a few people who are falsely accused of it. Just take the accusers word for it that slander happened.

You don't lose your whole life and livelihood over a false accusation of slander. With a false accusation of murder or rape, you are pretty much done. Time to move to a cave in Upper Elbonia.

andyt andyt:

It's not an either or choice. We can do all we can to minimize occurrence of rape, we can and should also do all we can to minimize occurrence of false accusations. We should deal with both as the crimes they are. It's not acceptable to see men falsely accused as the collateral damage in the fight against rape.

^^ That!

[andyt]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

andyt andyt:

You seem to be arguing we should not do anything about false accusations of sexual assault until all sexual assault has stopped.

Nope. But I'd like some guarantees that we aren't going to start charging 16 year olds who lack enough evidence to convince the court. What's the fucking line?

If they can be proven to have lied, with video proof and shit, then YES ABSOLUTELY CHARGE AND JAIL THEM. I'm uninterested in this pervasive understanding of weak sexual assault cases being evidence that she is a liar. The justice system already grills her for her own case in a gravely distasteful fashion until the very final moments. For these false rape claims, will the onus still be on the women to prove they aren't lying, or will it be put on the man?

The line is that it can be proven in court, beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied intentionally. Same standard as any other crime.

[Public_Domain]

[Public_Domain]

[DrCaleb]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

andyt andyt:

The line is that it can be proven in court, beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied intentionally. Same standard as any other crime.

So the onus is on the man or the woman for the false rape charge? We already have one avenue for grinding women down, so I wonder if we need two.

Did our justice system suddenly do a flip flop and people are presumed guilty until they prove their innocence?

[Public_Domain]

[ShepherdsDog]

But he's a different kind of communist.

[Public_Domain]

[DrCaleb]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

If we're going to have an awful society, then I'm just suggesting that during these false rape cases we go full broke and let defense lawyers aggressively slam them as rapists, manipulators, deviants during cross examination until they break down and cry and beg you to fucking shut up.

You are the only one suggesting that.

The rest of us would like to see more charges of 'filing a false police report' or 'perjury', if evidence warrants it. Like in the 'Rolling Stone' case.

[Public_Domain]

[DrCaleb]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

Sure. I'm being very purposefully crude here.

Really? Hadn't noticed.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

The things spoken to those who approach the justice system for this incredibly personal violation is very abusive and jarring and can only plausibly have a psychologically Pyrrhic at best. I can't help but feel we're making sure we're saving men from any grief, making sure they're comfortable, while we remain a-okay with contemporary practices towards potential victims. I'm okay with liars being charged (as stated). I want the justice system to stop crushing women and girls and I'm far more interested in that being dealt with than repeating again and again "Yeah, those who lie about a crime should be charged for it." within every god damn mention of rape made.

Being a witness to a crime means you have to testify to what you witness, in order for a trial to be fair. That's the way it works. If you witness embezzlement or murder, you have to relive the crime with varying degrees of discomfort. It sucks that being raped comes with this price, and such testimony is no less traumatic for a man than a woman, but the alternative is what we see in this article - the accuser is charged with nothing, and the reporters will keep their jobs for producing such an amazing work of fiction.

The long lasting effect is that a fraternity house has their reputation destroyed, and there are no legal remedies. If it were a person facing this accusation, their future would be just as bleak. But they can take comfort in that they never actually committed a crime, but the sentence is still 'life'.

[Public_Domain]

[Thanos]

You're asking for special treatment for rape accusers yet you don't see that's exactly what Rolling Stone did for 'Jackie" and doing so essentially cost them a reputation and legacy of ground-breaking investigative journalism that took them forty years to build. And for what? Setting all their normal journalistic practices and standards aside has literally destroyed them as a reliable publication. You know what Rolling Stone used to be? It was like the internet before there was an internet, and places like RS were the only magazines and papers that went beyond what the MSM was willing to report. And that's all gone now, destroyed completely by one irresponsible article written by an irresponsible reporter who tossed all the rules of her trade out the window in order to be 'sensitive' to an accuser who's been revealed to be nothing but a crazy little pathological liar.

When it's all over and they bury Rolling Stone once and for all the only thing that should be carved on it's tombstone should be 'killed by sensitivity, diversity, and political correctness'. RIP, I suppose, but they've got no one else to blame for letting the rules the social left plays by to kill them.