Domingo: guilty if accused?

[Tassilo]

https://www.rt.com/news/466507-placido-domingo-me-too-evidence

[HT]

Post by Tassilo
https://www.rt.com/news/466507-placido-domingo-me-too-evidence

So it seems. Certainly in the US. Not only in the context of #MeToo.

Henk

[Frank Berger]

Post by HT

Post by Tassilo
https://www.rt.com/news/466507-placido-domingo-me-too-evidence

So it seems. Certainly in the US. Not only in the context of #MeToo.
Henk

Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me. Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.

Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?

I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

[RANDY WOLFGANG]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up a courtrom. The question is how an accused person should be treated BEFORE he receives a sentence in court. If you think he is guilty or innocent- whatever. But is it proper for him to be stripped of assignments based on accusations alone??? What if these women got together because they had no talent, he told them so and they decided to get revenge??? it is a difficult issue becuase it has not yet been determined legally if he is innocent or guilty.

[Frank Berger]

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up a courtrom. The question is how an accused person should be treated BEFORE he receives a sentence in court. If you think he is guilty or innocent- whatever. But is it proper for him to be stripped of assignments based on accusations alone??? What if these women got together because they had no talent, he told them so and they decided to get revenge??? it is a difficult issue becuase it has not yet been determined legally if he is innocent or guilty.

I asked some questions in the previous post. You "answered" with more
questions. You are asking the same thing I am. Everyone seems to think
O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder except the jury on his case. He was
acquitted. Am I (would you) treat him the same as before because he was
acquitted in a courtroom? Aren't we allowed to form our own opinions.
Isn't every case different? If 8 women come forward and accuse Placido
Domingo of harassment, do we really think they have formed a conspiracy
together for some unknown purpose?

[RANDY WOLFGANG]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up a courtrom. The question is how an accused person should be treated BEFORE he receives a sentence in court. If you think he is guilty or innocent- whatever. But is it proper for him to be stripped of assignments based on accusations alone??? What if these women got together because they had no talent, he told them so and they decided to get revenge??? it is a difficult issue becuase it has not yet been determined legally if he is innocent or guilty.

I asked some questions in the previous post. You "answered" with more
questions. You are asking the same thing I am. Everyone seems to think
O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder except the jury on his case. He was
acquitted. Am I (would you) treat him the same as before because he was
acquitted in a courtroom? Aren't we allowed to form our own opinions.
Isn't every case different? If 8 women come forward and accuse Placido
Domingo of harassment, do we really think they have formed a conspiracy
together for some unknown purpose?

of course you can - my misunderstnding is why you kept comparing this as if it was a legal decision in a courtroom - so far this has nothing to with guilt or innocence legally. Its all conjecture and anyone can think anyway they want but that has noothing to do with the legal decision

[Frank Berger]

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up a courtrom. The question is how an accused person should be treated BEFORE he receives a sentence in court. If you think he is guilty or innocent- whatever. But is it proper for him to be stripped of assignments based on accusations alone??? What if these women got together because they had no talent, he told them so and they decided to get revenge??? it is a difficult issue becuase it has not yet been determined legally if he is innocent or guilty.

I asked some questions in the previous post. You "answered" with more
questions. You are asking the same thing I am. Everyone seems to think
O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder except the jury on his case. He was
acquitted. Am I (would you) treat him the same as before because he was
acquitted in a courtroom? Aren't we allowed to form our own opinions.
Isn't every case different? If 8 women come forward and accuse Placido
Domingo of harassment, do we really think they have formed a conspiracy
together for some unknown purpose?

of course you can - my misunderstnding is why you kept comparing this as if it was a legal decision in a courtroom - so far this has nothing to with guilt or innocence legally. Its all conjecture and anyone can think anyway they want but that has noothing to do with the legal decision

Because there is a relationship, that's why. Where do you think the
standard of reasonable doubt comes from? Thin air? It stems from a
value system that favors making one type of error over making another
type of error. If you won't or can't engage in hypotheticals for the
purpose of learning something about ourselves, so be it.

[RANDY WOLFGANG]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up a courtrom. The question is how an accused person should be treated BEFORE he receives a sentence in court. If you think he is guilty or innocent- whatever. But is it proper for him to be stripped of assignments based on accusations alone??? What if these women got together because they had no talent, he told them so and they decided to get revenge??? it is a difficult issue becuase it has not yet been determined legally if he is innocent or guilty.

I asked some questions in the previous post. You "answered" with more
questions. You are asking the same thing I am. Everyone seems to think
O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder except the jury on his case. He was
acquitted. Am I (would you) treat him the same as before because he was
acquitted in a courtroom? Aren't we allowed to form our own opinions.
Isn't every case different? If 8 women come forward and accuse Placido
Domingo of harassment, do we really think they have formed a conspiracy
together for some unknown purpose?

of course you can - my misunderstnding is why you kept comparing this as if it was a legal decision in a courtroom - so far this has nothing to with guilt or innocence legally. Its all conjecture and anyone can think anyway they want but that has noothing to do with the legal decision

Because there is a relationship, that's why. Where do you think the
standard of reasonable doubt comes from? Thin air? It stems from a
value system that favors making one type of error over making another
type of error. If you won't or can't engage in hypotheticals for the
purpose of learning something about ourselves, so be it.

No, one is legal - the other is not. If you can't see that so be it. Moving on.....

[Frank Berger]

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by RANDY WOLFGANG

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom? I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty. Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%. How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted? What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined. I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up a courtrom. The question is how an accused person should be treated BEFORE he receives a sentence in court. If you think he is guilty or innocent- whatever. But is it proper for him to be stripped of assignments based on accusations alone??? What if these women got together because they had no talent, he told them so and they decided to get revenge??? it is a difficult issue becuase it has not yet been determined legally if he is innocent or guilty.

I asked some questions in the previous post. You "answered" with more
questions. You are asking the same thing I am. Everyone seems to think
O.J. Simpson was guilty of murder except the jury on his case. He was
acquitted. Am I (would you) treat him the same as before because he was
acquitted in a courtroom? Aren't we allowed to form our own opinions.
Isn't every case different? If 8 women come forward and accuse Placido
Domingo of harassment, do we really think they have formed a conspiracy
together for some unknown purpose?

of course you can - my misunderstnding is why you kept comparing this as if it was a legal decision in a courtroom - so far this has nothing to with guilt or innocence legally. Its all conjecture and anyone can think anyway they want but that has noothing to do with the legal decision

Because there is a relationship, that's why. Where do you think the
standard of reasonable doubt comes from? Thin air? It stems from a
value system that favors making one type of error over making another
type of error. If you won't or can't engage in hypotheticals for the
purpose of learning something about ourselves, so be it.

No, one is legal - the other is not. If you can't see that so be it. Moving on.....

Left is left and right is right. They have nothing to do with each
other right? Except that without one the other doesn't exist.

[Bob Harper]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said."  Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case.  In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think
they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me.  Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence
and due process are the most frightening things about the current
'woke' Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

Are you saying that in forming your own personal opinion about innocence
or guilt you would use the same standard (reasonable doubt) as you would
in a courtroom?  I think that some have said that "reasonable doubt"
could mean around %25 probabilty.  Suppose you would vote guilty if you
thought the accused's probability of guilt 75% or more and you vote
innocent because you think it's 74%.  How would you feel about
socializing with the accused after he is acquitted?  What if asks your
daughter out on date (and he was just acquitted of date rape)?
I'm not contradicting what I said before, I don't think, but maybe I am.
 We don't give a fig about a guilty person who is acquitted but whose
life is ruined because of public opinion. But we obviously do care about
innocent people having their lives ruined.  I don't think there is any
answer to this other than that are unlucky.

You make a good point. What we think personally is not the same as what
we might think as the member of a jury. At the very least, I would need
to know a lot more before I could be comfortable with my daughter seeing
him. Nonetheless, allowing someone's life to be ruined because
*untested* public opinion decides 'guilty!' without a full
examination/evaluation of the charges, seems wrong. Again, if that seems
like I'm reaching for 'cosmic justice', so be it.

Bob Harper

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms does nothing but show your prejudice.

[weary flake]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.

"woke" = leftist, so it's a slur to claim that opposition
to sexual harassment is leftist inspired.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but
choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms
does nothing but show your prejudice.

I gather the real concern here is the sexual harassment accusations
against Epstein, Desrshowitz and other top Israel lobbyists. Those
who support Israel may view sexual harassment accustions in general
as a threat to Israel.

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.

"woke" = leftist, so it's a slur to claim that opposition
to sexual harassment is leftist inspired.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but
choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms
does nothing but show your prejudice.

I gather the real concern here is the sexual harassment accusations
against Epstein, Desrshowitz and other top Israel lobbyists.  Those
who support Israel may view sexual harassment accustions in general
as a threat to Israel.

You've gathered a bunch of mush between your ears.

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by weary flake

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.

"woke" = leftist, so it's a slur to claim that opposition
to sexual harassment is leftist inspired.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but
choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms
does nothing but show your prejudice.

I gather the real concern here is the sexual harassment accusations
against Epstein, Desrshowitz and other top Israel lobbyists.  Those
who support Israel may view sexual harassment accustions in general
as a threat to Israel.

You've gathered a bunch of mush between your ears.

Hey, I now don't know what we're talking about in this thread, either!

[Frank Berger]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by weary flake

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.

"woke" = leftist, so it's a slur to claim that opposition
to sexual harassment is leftist inspired.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but
choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms
does nothing but show your prejudice.

I gather the real concern here is the sexual harassment accusations
against Epstein, Desrshowitz and other top Israel lobbyists.  Those
who support Israel may view sexual harassment accustions in general
as a threat to Israel.

You've gathered a bunch of mush between your ears.

Hey, I now don't know what we're talking about in this thread, either.

There's always (at least) one in the bunch.

[Frank Berger]

Post by weary flake

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.

"woke" = leftist, so it's a slur to claim that opposition
to sexual harassment is leftist inspired.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but
choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms
does nothing but show your prejudice.

I gather the real concern here is the sexual harassment accusations
against Epstein, Desrshowitz and other top Israel lobbyists.  Those
who support Israel may view sexual harassment accustions in general
as a threat to Israel.

Where did you gather that from? Whose "real concern" are you talking
about? Mine? All Jews? Israel? Is Epstein a "top Israel lobbyist?" I
didn't know. What other "top" Israel lobbyists are being accused of
sexual harassment? Do you realize that Epstein is accused and convicted
in the past of stuff much, much worse than "just" harassment? Please
enlighten me.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms does nothing but show your prejudice.

There you go again.

Bob Harper

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by Bob Harper
There you go again.

*slight shake of the jowls*

[Bubbamike]

Tear down your wall, Mr Trump.

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms does nothing but show your prejudice.

There you go again.
Bob Harper

That's a perfect response. Reagan used the line, and launched it into political mythology, to rebut an accurate claim by Jimmy Carter about Reagan's position on Mecidare. The line itself was cover, and managed to convey Reagan's charming, trustworthy demeanor, even though the future president didn't have the truth on his side.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
It was. The abandonment of the core principles of presumed innocence and
due process are the most frightening things about the current 'woke'
Zeitgeist.
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.
Bob Harper

I'm sure there are people who advocate extreme, dumb things, but choosing to characterize all of them in such smug, condescending terms does nothing but show your prejudice.

There you go again.
Bob Harper

That's a perfect response. Reagan used the line, and launched it into political mythology, to rebut an accurate claim by Jimmy Carter about Reagan's position on Mecidare. The line itself was cover, and managed to convey Reagan's charming, trustworthy demeanor, even though the future president didn't have the truth on his side.

He had a different opinion about the virtue of Medicare vs. alternatives
at the time of its passage. That is hardly the equivalent of 'didn't
have truth on his side.'

I wonder, do you think that ditching the presumption of innocence and
due process are an acceptable price to pay for obeisance to the notion
that 'all women must be believed'?

Bob Harper

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper
I wonder, do you think that ditching the presumption of innocence and
due process are an acceptable price to pay for obeisance to the notion
that 'all women must be believed'?
Bob Harper

No, I don't at all. But that's an answer to a cartoon question. Those aren't the stakes, just your reactionary-flavored vision of it.

No doubt there are some ridiculous people on the far left, but you seem to be stuck imagining that all liberals are this cartoon effigy you delight in characterizing. No doubt right-wing propaganda and the WSJ opinion page thrives on leftist clowns and love to insist that this is the true face of liberalism, but that's doesn't match up with the real people I know who are sympathetic to the efforts of victims to find justice and expose abusers even if it is impossible to build viable court cases around them.

I live in the most Democratic county in America- the real people here are all very different, but few fit the ridiculous descriptions you offer. You really don't know who you are talking to, and you know very well at all those who you claim to describe.

Seriously, what's your position on this? Can women make public accusations when there may not be adequate evidence for criminal conviction? What if that is the first step toward those who will eventually be criminally convicted?

[JohnGavin]

I’m curious. Is there a single female contributor to this thread or the long Curtis thread?

[RANDY WOLFGANG]

Post by JohnGavin
I’m curious. Is there a single female contributor to this thread or the long Curtis thread?

If they are smart - no

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by JohnGavin
I’m curious. Is there a single female contributor to this thread or the long Curtis thread?

Is there a single female contributor to this group?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[JohnGavin]

Is there a single female contributor to this group?

Andrew Clarke
Canberra


There used to be

[Bob Harper]

Post by Andrew Clarke
Is there a single female contributor to this group?
Andrew Clarke
Canberra
There used to be

And several were some of the most well-informed, intelligent persons here.

Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
I wonder, do you think that ditching the presumption of innocence and
due process are an acceptable price to pay for obeisance to the notion
that 'all women must be believed'?
Bob Harper

No, I don't at all. But that's an answer to a cartoon question. Those aren't the stakes, just your reactionary-flavored vision of it.
No doubt there are some ridiculous people on the far left, but you seem to be stuck imagining that all liberals are this cartoon effigy you delight in characterizing. No doubt right-wing propaganda and the WSJ opinion page thrives on leftist clowns and love to insist that this is the true face of liberalism, but that's doesn't match up with the real people I know who are sympathetic to the efforts of victims to find justice and expose abusers even if it is impossible to build viable court cases around them.
I live in the most Democratic county in America- the real people here are all very different, but few fit the ridiculous descriptions you offer. You really don't know who you are talking to, and you know very well at all those who you claim to describe.
Seriously, what's your position on this? Can women make public accusations when there may not be adequate evidence for criminal conviction? What if that is the first step toward those who will eventually be criminally convicted?
First of all, I think those *are* the stakes. I also believe that the

Left has overplayed its hand, and the pendulum is beginning to swing
back to neutrality, however slowly.

I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able
to back them up with evidence, and they need to be able to stand up to
having the charges questioned. Charging someone with something that may
ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor; it
cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend
himself. Yes, that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

Oh, and you really don't know who *you* are talking to; you have simply
made assumptions about me--and they're pretty much wrong.

Bob Harper

[Andrew Clarke]

Post by Bob Harper
Charging someone with something that may
ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor;

"Katy Perry has been accused of sexual misconduct by a female television presenter who claims the singer tried to kiss her at a party.

Tina Kandelaki claimed she had to fend off unwanted advances from the Firework singer at a private function but did not specify when the alleged incident took place.

The allegation follows claims by a male model that the singer pulled down his trousers and exposed his genitals at a party.

The 43-year-old Georgian-born Russian TV host said she rebuffed advancements from Perry at a party and afterwards she “found herself a new victim”.

“Once I was invited to a private party with Katy Perry, where she, being pretty tipsy, chose me as an object for the manifestation of her passion,” the 43-year-old reportedly told a Russian newspaper.

“I managed to fight back and am pleased to say that all my fitness training was not in vain, but then Katy instantly found herself a new victim (to my shock again female) for kisses, embracing and dirty dances,” she added.

The allegation comes days after Josh Kloss, 38, said he was made to feel “pathetic and embarrassed” by the singer after she pulled down his trousers and underwear at a party."

- The Telegraph, London, 18/8/19 (behind a paywall)

<https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/17/second-accusation-sexual-misconduct-leveled-katy-perry-russian/>

Andrew Clarke
Canberra

[j***@gmail.com]

Identifying oneself and being willing to provide evidence in an adversarial setting.

NEW YORK TIMES
August 14, 2019

Jeffrey Epstein Raped Me When I Was 15

Now I’m suing his estate and accomplices.
by Jennifer Araoz

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/opinion/jeffrey-epstein-jennifer-araoz.amp.html

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper
I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able
to back them up with evidence, and they need to be able to stand up to
having the charges questioned. Charging someone with something that may
ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor; it
cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend
himself. Yes, that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

Post by Bob Harper
Oh, and you really don't know who *you* are talking to; you have simply
made assumptions about me--and they're pretty much wrong.

The difference between you and me, Harper, is that you want to see me as a member of some group of people that you think you understand and that you are against. My point is you are wrong.

Me, I wouldn't say I was interested in you as a person, and I don't pretend to understand your politics thoroughly. If you want to be clear about the assumptions I'm making about you, perhaps I will recognize them as unnecessary and retract them. But you've brought this up before and never with any specificity, so all I can do is borrow a really dumb one from you: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"

Here's another line you can make your own if you like: "Where is the reassuring sense that you can pretty much do what you like as long as you mean well, and it will be understood that you are not making anyone’s life worse?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2018/01/13/ladies-lets-be-reasonable-about-metoo-or-nothing-will-ever-be-sexy-again/

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able
to back them up with evidence, and they need to be able to stand up to
having the charges questioned. Charging someone with something that may
ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor; it
cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend
himself. Yes, that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

That is an absurd interpretation of what I said, and I suspect you know
that.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Oh, and you really don't know who *you* are talking to; you have simply
made assumptions about me--and they're pretty much wrong.

The difference between you and me, Harper, is that you want to see me as a member of some group of people that you think you understand and that you are against. My point is you are wrong.

No, one thing I don't do is look at people as simply members of a group.
I try to see everyone as an individual human person. I'm not sure you do.

Post by msw design
Me, I wouldn't say I was interested in you as a person, and I don't pretend to understand your politics thoroughly.

That's fairly obvious. And to be sure, my politics are a minor part of
who I am.

If you want to be clear about the assumptions I'm making about you,
perhaps I will recognize them as unnecessary and retract them. But
you've brought this up before and never with any specificity, so all I
can do is borrow a really dumb one from you: "if you can't stand the
heat, get out of the kitchen!"

I'm not hot. But I'm not interested in having you psychoanalyze me.

Post by msw design
Here's another line you can make your own if you like: "Where is the reassuring sense that you can pretty much do what you like as long as you mean well, and it will be understood that you are not making anyone’s life worse?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2018/01/13/ladies-lets-be-reasonable-about-metoo-or-nothing-will-ever-be-sexy-again/

No thanks. That line has nothing to do with how I think about these things.

Bob Harper

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

That is an absurd interpretation of what I said, and I suspect you know
that.

Perhaps this is completely wrong. Let'a look more closely at what you said.

1. I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able to back them up with evidence

Most importantly: or what? Spell it out. Sounds like you are saying that if there is no evidence, they should not have the right to speak.
Second: What kind of evidence do you respect here? Physical evidence? Witnesses? People the person confided in at the time? Character witnesses? What counts?

2. and they need to be able to stand up to having the charges questioned.

Not sure what "to be able to stand up" means. Sounds like you are unhappy with the degree to which accusers have made themselves available to interrogation by the media. Whom would you point to as not having done this, and what would you demand of the accusers? Without specifics this will remain completely unclear.

3. Charging someone with something that may ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor

Again, a bit uncertain what this means. Any accusation carries with it near certainties that the accuser will be harassed via phone and email and will receive threats of violence. But I assume that you are talking about other risks. I'm guessing you want to amplify the liabilities an accuser might see if the accusation doesn't meet a certain threshold. Are you saying that these barriers don't already exist within the current legal framework? What do you feel is necessary?

4. it cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend himself.

How would an accused lose the right to defend himself? (Obviously, none of this is about real legal rights, because those can't be changed by an accusation.) What does he need to be "given" in order to do that? If this about job security, or something larger?

5. that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

Agreed, the truth is more important than the accuser or accused person's feeling (feeling ~ evident sincerity?) or (professional/public) reputation. Do you feel that is getting lost? It's not lost on me.

What comes with the careful study of the situation will be also likely be a recognition that the whole, complete and accurate truth may never be verified and that we need to recognize and respect both parties and let them speak. But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by msw design
But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the
preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating
statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

Do we? I don't employ anyone.... Certainly not someone famous
like Placido Domingo....

The fact is, my opinion of him has no impact on him, and likely not
on anyone. Actually, this post is the height of my personal impact.
Not much, is it?

[Frank Berger]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by msw design
But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the
preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating
statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

Do we? I don't employ anyone.... Certainly not someone famous
like Placido Domingo....
The fact is, my opinion of him has no impact on him, and likely not
on anyone. Actually, this post is the height of my personal impact.
Not much, is it?

By this logic, no one would ever vote, since no one vote has ever or
probably will ever determine the outcome of an election. In fact, you
are right, because this explains why voter turnout is as low as it is,
and why boycotts generally don't work. But if you are disgusted by what
you believe Domingo's actions to be, are you not morally obligated to
boycott his performances and recordings? Just as many people do vote
because they feel obligated or even eager to participate in our
democracy, even though the know their one vote doesn't count.

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by Frank Berger
By this logic, no one would ever vote, since no one vote has ever
or probably will ever determine the outcome of an election.

This is yet another stupid statement. My single vote might be only
.000whatever percent of the total, but it does in fact count. My opinion
of Domingo does nothing, as already stated. Nothing. That's a
difference, one many people have no difficulty grasping.

Post by Frank Berger
But if you are disgusted by what you believe Domingo's actions to
be, are you not morally obligated to boycott his performances and
recordings?

Beyond being generally perplexed with all this nonsensical phrasing,
what would an affirmative to this question even entail? I've not
purchased his materials in the first place!

[Frank Berger]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by Frank Berger
By this logic, no one would ever vote, since no one vote has ever
or probably will ever determine the outcome of an election.

This is yet another stupid statement. My single vote might be only
.000whatever percent of the total, but it does in fact count. My opinion
of Domingo does nothing, as already stated. Nothing. That's a
difference, one many people have no difficulty grasping.

Post by Frank Berger
But if you are disgusted by what you believe Domingo's actions to
be, are you not morally obligated to boycott his performances and
recordings?

Beyond being generally perplexed with all this nonsensical phrasing,
what would an affirmative to this question even entail? I've not
purchased his materials in the first place!

Consider how you look when you call people stupid. I'll try one more
time. No important election has ever been won by one or two votes (the
number where a single vote can effect the outcome). That means that any
one vote is effectively meaningless. Your particular vote will never,
ever affect the outcome of an major election. If you disagree with
this you are a moron. Your boycotting Domingo has a near-zero, but still
positive, effect on his income. He doesn't know it? Neither do the
politicians that won or lost the election know about your vote or
non-vote. The two cases are not similar. They are identical. But I'm
stupid, what do I know?

[Todd Michel McComb]

Your boycotting Domingo ....

What the hell are you talking about? It's just babble....

But I'm stupid, what do I know?

The funny thing is that I assume you have some actual expertise --
about something else. Not sticking to that, whatever it is, is
where the stupid comes into play.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Your boycotting Domingo ....

What the hell are you talking about? It's just babble....

It is true that one of us is babbling.

[Todd Michel McComb]

Post by Frank Berger
It is true that one of us is babbling.

Perhaps I've gathered a little patience. I've said all
this in one form or another, at various points, but perhaps not
quite in this order. So let's see how foolhardy this is....

A few numbered scenes....

1) I've seen various comments here that people shouldn't jump to
conclusions or similar. I generally agree, but then I also wonder
who it is jumping to what conclusions. No one has jumped all over
e.g. Domingo here. So I wonder why this is constantly being said.
What could it possibly mean? (I have been asking about this in
various ways.)

2) But then there are various points where I'm told that I *must*
form a conclusion. I tried to ask Mr. Design about that, but you
jumped into it. Why? And why are people who are saying that people
need to be wary & offer protections & whatnot also among those
insisting that people must form conclusions?

3) Then I think, OK, I am being told that I *have* come to a
conclusion & I just don't know it. Well, I eventually told you
what I thought ought to happen in the Curtis situation. I have no
idea if it was what you thought I thought.... In that case, I did
feel a sense of concern specifically because of the institutional
situation, and so formed an opinion. With Domingo? I didn't read
the allegations in any detail.

4) After all, as noted multiple times in a row, he's just not someone
on my radar or whom I've patronized anyway. (I do know who he is,
at least, as opposed to so many other celebrities implicated in
such things.) So even if I were to suppose that I'd drawn a
conclusion of which I myself was unware -- I mean, such things do
happen to people, generally speaking -- what would be the result
of this conclusion? What would be the evidence in my behavior
regarding Domingo? How else would I possibly behave? Would I
*start* patronizing him? Now that seems bizarre.

5) But then I'm reminded of the sequence from #1 to #2 again, and
I think, well yes, of course, the only possible point of this
sequence is to make me care more about the accused now than prior
to the accusation! It's to insist that I must (or did) make a
decision, while (correctly) insisting that I also have no direct
knowledge on which to base one -- something of which I'm well aware
-- and (oh yes!) that this is like a trial. Or else like voting.
(Not like! Identical!) And so if I'm being responsible, if I care,
I'll... find Mr. Domingo NOT GUILTY and VOTE with my wallet to give
him the money I would have never given him in the first place! Wow.

6) Yes, I know, what a crazy world. (Indeed, I'm reminded of an
old thread about Chick Fil-A... I think the first time I'd ever
really seen a bunch of libertarian nutjobs go on about a company
somehow being entitled to the public's money....)

OK, so now I'm not really addressing this response to you,
Frank, but I'm putting it here because you usually interrupt anything
I'm trying to ask or say anyway. (That means those questions were
really for others who might read this.)

[Frank Berger]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

Post by Frank Berger
It is true that one of us is babbling.

Perhaps I've gathered a little patience. I've said all
this in one form or another, at various points, but perhaps not
quite in this order. So let's see how foolhardy this is....
A few numbered scenes....
1) I've seen various comments here that people shouldn't jump to
conclusions or similar. I generally agree, but then I also wonder
who it is jumping to what conclusions. No one has jumped all over
e.g. Domingo here. So I wonder why this is constantly being said.
What could it possibly mean? (I have been asking about this in
various ways.)
2) But then there are various points where I'm told that I *must*
form a conclusion. I tried to ask Mr. Design about that, but you
jumped into it. Why? And why are people who are saying that people
need to be wary & offer protections & whatnot also among those
insisting that people must form conclusions?
3) Then I think, OK, I am being told that I *have* come to a
conclusion & I just don't know it. Well, I eventually told you
what I thought ought to happen in the Curtis situation. I have no
idea if it was what you thought I thought.... In that case, I did
feel a sense of concern specifically because of the institutional
situation, and so formed an opinion. With Domingo? I didn't read
the allegations in any detail.
4) After all, as noted multiple times in a row, he's just not someone
on my radar or whom I've patronized anyway. (I do know who he is,
at least, as opposed to so many other celebrities implicated in
such things.) So even if I were to suppose that I'd drawn a
conclusion of which I myself was unware -- I mean, such things do
happen to people, generally speaking -- what would be the result
of this conclusion? What would be the evidence in my behavior
regarding Domingo? How else would I possibly behave? Would I
*start* patronizing him? Now that seems bizarre.
5) But then I'm reminded of the sequence from #1 to #2 again, and
I think, well yes, of course, the only possible point of this
sequence is to make me care more about the accused now than prior
to the accusation! It's to insist that I must (or did) make a
decision, while (correctly) insisting that I also have no direct
knowledge on which to base one -- something of which I'm well aware
-- and (oh yes!) that this is like a trial. Or else like voting.
(Not like! Identical!) And so if I'm being responsible, if I care,
I'll... find Mr. Domingo NOT GUILTY and VOTE with my wallet to give
him the money I would have never given him in the first place! Wow.
6) Yes, I know, what a crazy world. (Indeed, I'm reminded of an
old thread about Chick Fil-A... I think the first time I'd ever
really seen a bunch of libertarian nutjobs go on about a company
somehow being entitled to the public's money....)
OK, so now I'm not really addressing this response to you,
Frank, but I'm putting it here because you usually interrupt anything
I'm trying to ask or say anyway. (That means those questions were
really for others who might read this.)

You have lost track of who has said what during this thread. As have I
to some extent. I do remember your calling me stupid. I won't forget
that for a while.

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger
You have lost track of who has said what during this thread. As have I
to some extent. I do remember your calling me stupid. I won't forget
that for a while.

Frank, while I'm at it, I might jump into this discussion you're having with someone else to say that I may have called you a few names over the course of the past few weeks, and I regret that, too, though I never thought for a second I might suppress you. ;-)

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
You have lost track of who has said what during this thread. As have I
to some extent. I do remember your calling me stupid. I won't forget
that for a while.

Frank, while I'm at it, I might jump into this discussion you're having with someone else to say that I may have called you a few names over the course of the past few weeks, and I regret that, too, though I never thought for a second I might suppress you. ;-)

Sometimes we lose control. Shouldn't happen, but it does.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

That is an absurd interpretation of what I said, and I suspect you know
that.

Perhaps this is completely wrong. Let'a look more closely at what you said.
1. I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able to back them up with evidence
Most importantly: or what? Spell it out. Sounds like you are saying that if there is no evidence, they should not have the right to speak.

Not at all. But they should expect some to be rightly skeptical. That's
not the same as censoring them.

Post by msw design
Second: What kind of evidence do you respect here? Physical evidence? Witnesses? People the person confided in at the time? Character witnesses? What counts?

That it up to the accuser. Obviously all of those *could* play a part.

Post by msw design
2. and they need to be able to stand up to having the charges questioned.
Not sure what "to be able to stand up" means. Sounds like you are unhappy with the degree to which accusers have made themselves available to interrogation by the media. Whom would you point to as not having done this, and what would you demand of the accusers? Without specifics this will remain completely unclear.

No, what I mean is that they should be able to offer evidence (see #1)
rather than insisting that any question about the truth of the
accusation is--take your pick--sexism, racism, toxic masculinity, etc.,
etc.--which happens all too frequently.

Post by msw design
3. Charging someone with something that may ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor
Again, a bit uncertain what this means. Any accusation carries with it near certainties that the accuser will be harassed via phone and email and will receive threats of violence.

Really? If the accuser makes his or her case--even in the media--I would
think that the opprobrium attaches to the accused, not the accuser.

But I assume that you are talking about other risks. I'm guessing you
want to amplify the liabilities an accuser might see if the accusation
doesn't meet a certain threshold. Are you saying that these barriers
don't already exist within the current legal framework? What do you feel
is necessary?

Those barriers exist when there is insufficient evidence to proceed
legally. And they should. As for public, non-criminal accusations, the
punishment of not being believed is generally sufficient.

Post by msw design
4. it cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend himself.
How would an accused lose the right to defend himself? (Obviously, none of this is about real legal rights, because those can't be changed by an accusation.) What does he need to be "given" in order to do that? If this about job security, or something larger?

Look at the kangaroo courts set up on many college campuses (and now
thankfully being dismantled) to adjudge accusations of sexual assault.
Look at Oberlin's (deserved) predicament. When there is the possibility
of someone's life or livelihood being destroyed, a remedy which obviates
that result is needed. That happens in real courts, not campus 'courts'
or by the twitter mob.

Post by msw design
5. that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

Agreed, the truth is more important than the accuser or accused person's feeling (feeling ~ evident sincerity?) or (professional/public) reputation. Do you feel that is getting lost? It's not lost on me.

You are more sanguine about that than am I.

Post by msw design
What comes with the careful study of the situation will be also likely be a recognition that the whole, complete and accurate truth may never be verified and that we need to recognize and respect both parties and let them speak. But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

I don't disagree. But he said/she said alone does not seem to me to
reach that level of reasonableness.

Bob Harper

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

That is an absurd interpretation of what I said, and I suspect you know
that.

Perhaps this is completely wrong. Let'a look more closely at what you said.
1. I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able to back them up with evidence
Most importantly: or what? Spell it out. Sounds like you are saying that if there is no evidence, they should not have the right to speak.

Not at all. But they should expect some to be rightly skeptical. That's
not the same as censoring them.

100% agree.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
Second: What kind of evidence do you respect here? Physical evidence? Witnesses? People the person confided in at the time? Character witnesses? What counts?

That it up to the accuser. Obviously all of those *could* play a part.

Fair enough.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
2. and they need to be able to stand up to having the charges questioned.
Not sure what "to be able to stand up" means. Sounds like you are unhappy with the degree to which accusers have made themselves available to interrogation by the media. Whom would you point to as not having done this, and what would you demand of the accusers? Without specifics this will remain completely unclear.

No, what I mean is that they should be able to offer evidence (see #1)
rather than insisting that any question about the truth of the
accusation is--take your pick--sexism, racism, toxic masculinity, etc.,
etc.--which happens all too frequently.

Agree with the first part, haven't kept score on the latter. Certainly agree it could happen.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
3. Charging someone with something that may ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor
Again, a bit uncertain what this means. Any accusation carries with it near certainties that the accuser will be harassed via phone and email and will receive threats of violence.

Really? If the accuser makes his or her case--even in the media--I would
think that the opprobrium attaches to the accused, not the accuser.

There are nonetheless consequences for the accuser that make life more uncomfortable, to say the least. That's not really what we are talking about, but I don't see any value in denying it.

Post by Bob Harper
But I assume that you are talking about other risks. I'm guessing you
want to amplify the liabilities an accuser might see if the accusation
doesn't meet a certain threshold. Are you saying that these barriers
don't already exist within the current legal framework? What do you feel
is necessary?
Those barriers exist when there is insufficient evidence to proceed
legally. And they should. As for public, non-criminal accusations, the
punishment of not being believed is generally sufficient.

We're not disagreeing on anything substantial so far.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
4. it cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend himself.
How would an accused lose the right to defend himself? (Obviously, none of this is about real legal rights, because those can't be changed by an accusation.) What does he need to be "given" in order to do that? If this about job security, or something larger?

Look at the kangaroo courts set up on many college campuses (and now
thankfully being dismantled) to adjudge accusations of sexual assault.
Look at Oberlin's (deserved) predicament. When there is the possibility
of someone's life or livelihood being destroyed, a remedy which obviates
that result is needed. That happens in real courts, not campus 'courts'
or by the twitter mob.

I don't work in an academic environment and my kids aren't out of grade school, so I can't say this is something I look at actively or or use as a model for the ills of local, state and federal laws or justice processes. No doubt campus "justice" is a strange animal that likely varies from school to school.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
5. that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

Agreed, the truth is more important than the accuser or accused person's feeling (feeling ~ evident sincerity?) or (professional/public) reputation. Do you feel that is getting lost? It's not lost on me.

You are more sanguine about that than am I.

I'm surrounded by adult peers who are probably inclined to believe accusers (I do live in a demographic bubble.) But I don't find too high an incidence of wishing for some form of justice that would violate due process. (How hard have I looked? Fair question. I might make it a side project of mine to try to scratch below the surface more. I would hope that even among those who believed C. B. Ford, they would acknowledge that her claims were inadequate (no evidence) to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation, and that perhaps there shouldn't have been a hearing at all, because of the obvious inadequacy of the claims and the fact that they were both damaged by the hearing. That's pretty close to my own position.)

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
What comes with the careful study of the situation will be also likely be a recognition that the whole, complete and accurate truth may never be verified and that we need to recognize and respect both parties and let them speak. But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

I don't disagree. But he said/she said alone does not seem to me to
reach that level of reasonableness.

Again, I agree. So I misunderstood where you were coming from. I would still assert that your comment about Laura St. John's album covers was grossly mistimed, but at this point I have to say I've surely been too harsh with you. I apologize.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

That is an absurd interpretation of what I said, and I suspect you know
that.

Perhaps this is completely wrong. Let'a look more closely at what you said.
1. I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able to back them up with evidence
Most importantly: or what? Spell it out. Sounds like you are saying that if there is no evidence, they should not have the right to speak.

Not at all. But they should expect some to be rightly skeptical. That's
not the same as censoring them.

100% agree.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
Second: What kind of evidence do you respect here? Physical evidence? Witnesses? People the person confided in at the time? Character witnesses? What counts?

That it up to the accuser. Obviously all of those *could* play a part.

Fair enough.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
2. and they need to be able to stand up to having the charges questioned.
Not sure what "to be able to stand up" means. Sounds like you are unhappy with the degree to which accusers have made themselves available to interrogation by the media. Whom would you point to as not having done this, and what would you demand of the accusers? Without specifics this will remain completely unclear.

No, what I mean is that they should be able to offer evidence (see #1)
rather than insisting that any question about the truth of the
accusation is--take your pick--sexism, racism, toxic masculinity, etc.,
etc.--which happens all too frequently.

Agree with the first part, haven't kept score on the latter. Certainly agree it could happen.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
3. Charging someone with something that may ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor
Again, a bit uncertain what this means. Any accusation carries with it near certainties that the accuser will be harassed via phone and email and will receive threats of violence.

Really? If the accuser makes his or her case--even in the media--I would
think that the opprobrium attaches to the accused, not the accuser.

There are nonetheless consequences for the accuser that make life more uncomfortable, to say the least. That's not really what we are talking about, but I don't see any value in denying it.

Post by Bob Harper
But I assume that you are talking about other risks. I'm guessing you
want to amplify the liabilities an accuser might see if the accusation
doesn't meet a certain threshold. Are you saying that these barriers
don't already exist within the current legal framework? What do you feel
is necessary?
Those barriers exist when there is insufficient evidence to proceed
legally. And they should. As for public, non-criminal accusations, the
punishment of not being believed is generally sufficient.

We're not disagreeing on anything substantial so far.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
4. it cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend himself.
How would an accused lose the right to defend himself? (Obviously, none of this is about real legal rights, because those can't be changed by an accusation.) What does he need to be "given" in order to do that? If this about job security, or something larger?

Look at the kangaroo courts set up on many college campuses (and now
thankfully being dismantled) to adjudge accusations of sexual assault.
Look at Oberlin's (deserved) predicament. When there is the possibility
of someone's life or livelihood being destroyed, a remedy which obviates
that result is needed. That happens in real courts, not campus 'courts'
or by the twitter mob.

I don't work in an academic environment and my kids aren't out of grade school, so I can't say this is something I look at actively or or use as a model for the ills of local, state and federal laws or justice processes. No doubt campus "justice" is a strange animal that likely varies from school to school.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
5. that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

Agreed, the truth is more important than the accuser or accused person's feeling (feeling ~ evident sincerity?) or (professional/public) reputation. Do you feel that is getting lost? It's not lost on me.

You are more sanguine about that than am I.

I'm surrounded by adult peers who are probably inclined to believe accusers (I do live in a demographic bubble.) But I don't find too high an incidence of wishing for some form of justice that would violate due process. (How hard have I looked? Fair question. I might make it a side project of mine to try to scratch below the surface more. I would hope that even among those who believed C. B. Ford, they would acknowledge that her claims were inadequate (no evidence) to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation, and that perhaps there shouldn't have been a hearing at all, because of the obvious inadequacy of the claims and the fact that they were both damaged by the hearing. That's pretty close to my own position.)

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
What comes with the careful study of the situation will be also likely be a recognition that the whole, complete and accurate truth may never be verified and that we need to recognize and respect both parties and let them speak. But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

I don't disagree. But he said/she said alone does not seem to me to
reach that level of reasonableness.

Again, I agree. So I misunderstood where you were coming from. I would still assert that your comment about Laura St. John's album covers was grossly mistimed, but at this point I have to say I've surely been too harsh with you. I apologize.

I have thought--a lot--about my initial comment re Ms. St. John, and
have come to the conclusion that my comment was unfair and unhelpful,
and I apologize for it. But from it, after much toing and froing, has
come this last pair of posts (mine and yours), which from my point of
view, redeems the whole thread. Thanks for helping us both get to this
point.

Bob Harper

[msw design]

Post by Bob Harper
I have thought--a lot--about my initial comment re Ms. St. John, and
have come to the conclusion that my comment was unfair and unhelpful,
and I apologize for it. But from it, after much toing and froing, has
come this last pair of posts (mine and yours), which from my point of
view, redeems the whole thread. Thanks for helping us both get to this
point.
Bob Harper

As usual, there is a lesson here for me about the value, or moreso, futility of anger. Appreciate your willingness to tread through the muck.

[Bob Harper]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
I have thought--a lot--about my initial comment re Ms. St. John, and
have come to the conclusion that my comment was unfair and unhelpful,
and I apologize for it. But from it, after much toing and froing, has
come this last pair of posts (mine and yours), which from my point of
view, redeems the whole thread. Thanks for helping us both get to this
point.
Bob Harper

As usual, there is a lesson here for me about the value, or moreso, futility of anger. Appreciate your willingness to tread through the muck.

'As usual'. For both thee and me :).

Bob Harper

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

That is an absurd interpretation of what I said, and I suspect you know
that.

Perhaps this is completely wrong. Let'a look more closely at what you said.
1. I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able to back them up with evidence
Most importantly: or what? Spell it out. Sounds like you are saying that if there is no evidence, they should not have the right to speak.

Not at all. But they should expect some to be rightly skeptical. That's
not the same as censoring them.

100% agree.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
Second: What kind of evidence do you respect here? Physical evidence? Witnesses? People the person confided in at the time? Character witnesses? What counts?

That it up to the accuser. Obviously all of those *could* play a part.

Fair enough.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
2. and they need to be able to stand up to having the charges questioned.
Not sure what "to be able to stand up" means. Sounds like you are unhappy with the degree to which accusers have made themselves available to interrogation by the media. Whom would you point to as not having done this, and what would you demand of the accusers? Without specifics this will remain completely unclear.

No, what I mean is that they should be able to offer evidence (see #1)
rather than insisting that any question about the truth of the
accusation is--take your pick--sexism, racism, toxic masculinity, etc.,
etc.--which happens all too frequently.

Agree with the first part, haven't kept score on the latter. Certainly agree it could happen.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
3. Charging someone with something that may ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor
Again, a bit uncertain what this means. Any accusation carries with it near certainties that the accuser will be harassed via phone and email and will receive threats of violence.

Really? If the accuser makes his or her case--even in the media--I would
think that the opprobrium attaches to the accused, not the accuser.

There are nonetheless consequences for the accuser that make life more uncomfortable, to say the least. That's not really what we are talking about, but I don't see any value in denying it.

Post by Bob Harper
But I assume that you are talking about other risks. I'm guessing you
want to amplify the liabilities an accuser might see if the accusation
doesn't meet a certain threshold. Are you saying that these barriers
don't already exist within the current legal framework? What do you feel
is necessary?
Those barriers exist when there is insufficient evidence to proceed
legally. And they should. As for public, non-criminal accusations, the
punishment of not being believed is generally sufficient.

We're not disagreeing on anything substantial so far.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
4. it cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend himself.
How would an accused lose the right to defend himself? (Obviously, none of this is about real legal rights, because those can't be changed by an accusation.) What does he need to be "given" in order to do that? If this about job security, or something larger?

Look at the kangaroo courts set up on many college campuses (and now
thankfully being dismantled) to adjudge accusations of sexual assault.
Look at Oberlin's (deserved) predicament. When there is the possibility
of someone's life or livelihood being destroyed, a remedy which obviates
that result is needed. That happens in real courts, not campus 'courts'
or by the twitter mob.

I don't work in an academic environment and my kids aren't out of grade school, so I can't say this is something I look at actively or or use as a model for the ills of local, state and federal laws or justice processes. No doubt campus "justice" is a strange animal that likely varies from school to school.

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
5. that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

Agreed, the truth is more important than the accuser or accused person's feeling (feeling ~ evident sincerity?) or (professional/public) reputation. Do you feel that is getting lost? It's not lost on me.

You are more sanguine about that than am I.

I'm surrounded by adult peers who are probably inclined to believe accusers (I do live in a demographic bubble.) But I don't find too high an incidence of wishing for some form of justice that would violate due process. (How hard have I looked? Fair question. I might make it a side project of mine to try to scratch below the surface more. I would hope that even among those who believed C. B. Ford, they would acknowledge that her claims were inadequate (no evidence) to derail Kavanaugh's confirmation, and that perhaps there shouldn't have been a hearing at all, because of the obvious inadequacy of the claims and the fact that they were both damaged by the hearing. That's pretty close to my own position.)

Post by Bob Harper

Post by msw design
What comes with the careful study of the situation will be also likely be a recognition that the whole, complete and accurate truth may never be verified and that we need to recognize and respect both parties and let them speak. But we also need to be able to judge at some point when the preponderance of evidence and number witnesses or corroborating statements make actions like severing employment fair and reasonable.

I don't disagree. But he said/she said alone does not seem to me to
reach that level of reasonableness.

Again, I agree. So I misunderstood where you were coming from. I would still assert that your comment about Laura St. John's album covers was grossly mistimed, but at this point I have to say I've surely been too harsh with you. I apologize.

I told you that a long time ago.

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger
I told you that a long time ago.

This made me smile. You are right, but believe me, it meant so much more to get here in conversation with Bob, and I don't think you could argue with that.

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
I told you that a long time ago.

This made me smile. You are right, but believe me, it meant so much more to get here in conversation with Bob, and I don't think you could argue with that.

Closure is good. Until next time.

[Bozo]

Post by Frank Berger
Closure is good. Until next time.

Do it in the open to eliminate any confusion ? The Trump defense ?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/opera-star-vittorio-grigolo-suspended-over-groping-claims-vqhst98rr

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
I am fine with women making public accusations, but they need to be able
to back them up with evidence, and they need to be able to stand up to
having the charges questioned. Charging someone with something that may
ruin his life (and it's usually a he) cannot be a risk-free endeavor; it
cannot be undertaken without giving the accused the right to defend
himself. Yes, that may get ugly, but the truth is more important than
either person's feelings or reputation. Harsh, perhaps, but true.

So if there is no available evidence, women should shut up. And let's further confuse what is necessary for legal action conviction with what is necessary for a man to retain his reputation. It would appear that the latter for you has so much more value than anything else we could consider.

This logic means there is no distinction between a real case of abuse
with no evidence and a false case. How can that be? It seems you don't
value the reputation of an innocent person at all. You must know there
is already something in between criminal justice and simple reputation.
It's civil law. Even there to win a case a plaintiff has to have the
"preponderance of the evidence," a much lower standard than in a
criminal case. One credible witness can be enough to win a judgement.
Not that it can be stopped, but why should we give any credence to a
third standard, where zero evidence is required? Just as in innocent
person having their life ruined by a wrong conviction is bad luck, so a
real victim of abuse who can't provide any evidence for it is unlucky.
Presumably the accused will be unable to prove his innocence. What the
Kaufman and similar cases show is the the majority of people will not
give credence to unsubstantiated charges. Thank God.

Post by msw design

Post by Bob Harper
Oh, and you really don't know who *you* are talking to; you have simply
made assumptions about me--and they're pretty much wrong.

The difference between you and me, Harper, is that you want to see me as a member of some group of people that you think you understand and that you are against. My point is you are wrong.
Me, I wouldn't say I was interested in you as a person, and I don't pretend to understand your politics thoroughly. If you want to be clear about the assumptions I'm making about you, perhaps I will recognize them as unnecessary and retract them. But you've brought this up before and never with any specificity, so all I can do is borrow a really dumb one from you: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
Here's another line you can make your own if you like: "Where is the reassuring sense that you can pretty much do what you like as long as you mean well, and it will be understood that you are not making anyone’s life worse?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2018/01/13/ladies-lets-be-reasonable-about-metoo-or-nothing-will-ever-be-sexy-again/

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger
This logic means there is no distinction between a real case of abuse
with no evidence and a false case. How can that be? It seems you don't
value the reputation of an innocent person at all. You must know there
is already something in between criminal justice and simple reputation.
It's civil law. Even there to win a case a plaintiff has to have the
"preponderance of the evidence," a much lower standard than in a
criminal case. One credible witness can be enough to win a judgement.
Not that it can be stopped, but why should we give any credence to a
third standard, where zero evidence is required? Just as in innocent
person having their life ruined by a wrong conviction is bad luck, so a
real victim of abuse who can't provide any evidence for it is unlucky.
Presumably the accused will be unable to prove his innocence. What the
Kaufman and similar cases show is the the majority of people will not
give credence to unsubstantiated charges. Thank God.

I think my response to Bob shows that none of us are at either extreme here. But I am interested in the question of what a sexual assault victim should do when there is no real evidence against the perpetrator. What would you want that person to do?

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
This logic means there is no distinction between a real case of abuse
with no evidence and a false case. How can that be? It seems you don't
value the reputation of an innocent person at all. You must know there
is already something in between criminal justice and simple reputation.
It's civil law. Even there to win a case a plaintiff has to have the
"preponderance of the evidence," a much lower standard than in a
criminal case. One credible witness can be enough to win a judgement.
Not that it can be stopped, but why should we give any credence to a
third standard, where zero evidence is required? Just as in innocent
person having their life ruined by a wrong conviction is bad luck, so a
real victim of abuse who can't provide any evidence for it is unlucky.
Presumably the accused will be unable to prove his innocence. What the
Kaufman and similar cases show is the the majority of people will not
give credence to unsubstantiated charges. Thank God.

I think my response to Bob shows that none of us are at either extreme here. But I am interested in the question of what a sexual assault victim should do when there is no real evidence against the perpetrator. What would you want that person to do?

Some problems have no good solutions. She could go to the police. They
would investigate and find no evidence. No prosecution would go
forward. Maybe they could set up a sting operation to entrap (in a good
sense) the guy. She could get a gun and shoot the guy. Presumably you
would not recommend that, but if her life is ruined anyway, why not?
Less extreme is to go public as some have done. What that accomplishes
is unclear. As you say (and baselessly accused Bob of disagreeing), she
has the right to go public. Some seem to want to believe that if she
takes this drastic step, she must be telling the truth. Even though
there are plenty of cases where we learn she was lying or confused. As
I said some problems have no good solutions.

[Todd Michel McComb]

.... She could go to the police. They would investigate and find
no evidence. No prosecution would go forward. ....

All this bizarre stuff.... I guess you are actually sincere...?

But have you ever felt as though you just wanted to tell people
(whether in the more modest or more expansive dimension of that
term) about something that happened to you? Did you always have
all your proof in line & all that in case someone piped up to insist
that you go to the police or shut up? This seems somehow alien to
you?

[Frank Berger]

Post by Todd Michel McComb

.... She could go to the police. They would investigate and find
no evidence. No prosecution would go forward. ....

All this bizarre stuff.... I guess you are actually sincere...?

I've seen it happen on TV all the time. Not so bizarre.

Post by Todd Michel McComb
But have you ever felt as though you just wanted to tell people
(whether in the more modest or more expansive dimension of that
term) about something that happened to you? Did you always have
all your proof in line & all that in case someone piped up to insist
that you go to the police or shut up? This seems somehow alien to
you?

One of us does seem to be an alien. Nothing I said precluded a victim
from doing that. The question is, since there is such a thing as false
accusations, how do you or I react to someone making an unsubstantiated
accusation?

[O]

Post by Frank Berger
The question is, since there is such a thing as false
accusations, how do you or I react to someone making an unsubstantiated
accusation?

We get on RMCR and exhaust ourselves arguing, of course!

-Owen

[Frank Berger]

Post by O

Post by Frank Berger
The question is, since there is such a thing as false
accusations, how do you or I react to someone making an unsubstantiated
accusation?

We get on RMCR and exhaust ourselves arguing, of course!
-Owen

Right.

[n***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.

Well guilt wasn't proven (to the satisfaction of the jury) in the infamous OJ case, so what?

Post by Bob Harper
Bob Harper

[Bob Harper]

Post by n***@gmail.com

Post by Bob Harper
Guilt should--must--be proven, not assumed.

Well guilt wasn't proven (to the satisfaction of the jury) in the infamous OJ case, so what?

Post by Bob Harper
Bob Harper

That is true, and it represented a failure of the justice system. The
subsequent history of OJ does represent the ability of society to
sanction even in the absence of legal conviction (though he got that
later). But our legal system is based upon the idea that it is better
for ninety-nine guilty persons to go free than for one innocent person
to be convicted. Sometimes that sucks, but would you change it?

Bob Harper

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me. Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

The entire premise is that the "they's" want to destroy due process, isn't it? You're pushing your belief that there is a bloc of interested parties (who speak for women, if I read correctly) who are disinterested in justice as conventionally understood in our system of law.

Maybe you are talking about a narrow set of advocates whose proposals are radical and cross the line. It's possible there are real people who fit that description. But I think you'd have to specify them

But I read this as if the "they's" were the #metoo's/most advocates for women. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. But that statement is just baldly insulting and prejudiced.

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me. Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

The entire premise is that the "they's" want to destroy due process, isn't it? You're pushing your belief that there is a bloc of interested parties (who speak for women, if I read correctly) who are disinterested in justice as conventionally understood in our system of law.
Maybe you are talking about a narrow set of advocates whose proposals are radical and cross the line. It's possible there are real people who fit that description. But I think you'd have to specify them
But I read this as if the "they's" were the #metoo's/most advocates for women. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. But that statement is just baldly insulting and prejudiced.

I wish you wouldn't assume what I believe. I haven't said anything
like that. Certainly there are individuals who seem (correct me if I'm
wrong) to assume guilt in this kind of case where I don't believe they
would in other kinds of cases. I'm not saying they would scrap the
innocent until proven guilty legal standard. I really have no idea. If
I questions in my posts you can assume I'm interested in hearing
responses. I am not hiding an opinion behind a question. Sometimes
this is called brainstorming. Or a discussion.

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me. Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

The entire premise is that the "they's" want to destroy due process, isn't it? You're pushing your belief that there is a bloc of interested parties (who speak for women, if I read correctly) who are disinterested in justice as conventionally understood in our system of law.
Maybe you are talking about a narrow set of advocates whose proposals are radical and cross the line. It's possible there are real people who fit that description. But I think you'd have to specify them
But I read this as if the "they's" were the #metoo's/most advocates for women. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. But that statement is just baldly insulting and prejudiced.

I wish you wouldn't assume what I believe. I haven't said anything
like that. Certainly there are individuals who seem (correct me if I'm
wrong) to assume guilt in this kind of case where I don't believe they
would in other kinds of cases. I'm not saying they would scrap the
innocent until proven guilty legal standard. I really have no idea. If
I questions in my posts you can assume I'm interested in hearing
responses. I am not hiding an opinion behind a question. Sometimes
this is called brainstorming. Or a discussion.

Good points- I will try to avoid that. I AM trying to understand your post in the sense of who "they" are.

I still have a few observations about the question
"In they absence of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?"

1. Obviously, the question can't be answered. This isn't a scientific question.
2. You can substitute a lot of words for "they" and the question becomes immediately offensive because it assumes that the group is predominantly unjust.
3. Are we talking about a real case where justice has been denied or perverted by social pressure groups, or just general beliefs that these groups will do something bad? Like sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids? Pardon the Jack Ripper quote, but overreaction is part of what I see here.

[Frank Berger]

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger

Post by msw design

Post by Frank Berger
Well, there is a difference between, "He said, she said" and "He said,
they said." Isn't there? Suppose it was a court case. In they absence
of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?

Completely unnecessary. Just another thread allowing those who think they stand for fairness to air their prejudices.

Seemed like a fair, unprejudiced quesion to me. Especially, since I
don't know the answer.

The entire premise is that the "they's" want to destroy due process, isn't it? You're pushing your belief that there is a bloc of interested parties (who speak for women, if I read correctly) who are disinterested in justice as conventionally understood in our system of law.
Maybe you are talking about a narrow set of advocates whose proposals are radical and cross the line. It's possible there are real people who fit that description. But I think you'd have to specify them
But I read this as if the "they's" were the #metoo's/most advocates for women. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. But that statement is just baldly insulting and prejudiced.

I wish you wouldn't assume what I believe. I haven't said anything
like that. Certainly there are individuals who seem (correct me if I'm
wrong) to assume guilt in this kind of case where I don't believe they
would in other kinds of cases. I'm not saying they would scrap the
innocent until proven guilty legal standard. I really have no idea. If
I questions in my posts you can assume I'm interested in hearing
responses. I am not hiding an opinion behind a question. Sometimes
this is called brainstorming. Or a discussion.

Good points- I will try to avoid that. I AM trying to understand your post in the sense of who "they" are.
I still have a few observations about the question
"In they absence of any other evidence, how many "they's" would it take to do away with a
reasonable doubt?"
1. Obviously, the question can't be answered. This isn't a scientific question.
2. You can substitute a lot of words for "they" and the question becomes immediately offensive because it assumes that the group is predominantly unjust.
3. Are we talking about a real case where justice has been denied or perverted by social pressure groups, or just general beliefs that these groups will do something bad? Like sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids? Pardon the Jack Ripper quote, but overreaction is part of what I see here.

You seem to have a penchant for misunderstanding me. Are you trying to
pin a conspiracy theory on me? I have no idea where that's coming from.
If you are on a jury and the ONLY evidence against a person accused of
rape is one woman making the charge, I assume you vote not guilty.
There is a reasonable doubt. What if there 3 women making the
accusation? What if there were 10? As the number goes up doesn't the
doubt go down?

[msw design]

Post by Frank Berger
You seem to have a penchant for misunderstanding me. Are you trying to
pin a conspiracy theory on me? I have no idea where that's coming from.
If you are on a jury and the ONLY evidence against a person accused of
rape is one woman making the charge, I assume you vote not guilty.
There is a reasonable doubt. What if there 3 women making the
accusation? What if there were 10? As the number goes up doesn't the
doubt go down?

Hey, hey, cool it. I did misunderstand. Cpmpletely. I'm sorry. My questions were completely misdirected. Sorry to divert things.