Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Alakhami, Oct 10, 2018.

  1. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    That's all emotion driven though, where are the facts. Typically most **** victims can at least remember the day, time, who was there, where at or have someone to back up their claim. If you go to a party with a friend, and they disappear for a long period of time, typically you know your friend is missing, and you are going to be curious where they were.

    You hit the nail on the head " their is no way to prove that it ever happened", your quote directly. To this I can say, their is no way to prove it did happen, do you see how silly this is ? This is why you need proof, she had none, case closed sorry.

    What adult or teenage male isn't full of testosterone and drinks ? On that basis you can accuse every single man in the world almost. Don't you see how silly this is, like really think about it ? Give me a logical argument, and take your emotional perspective out of the equation.

    I believe no politician is pure, they are all pieces of garbage equally.
  2. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    when I was -8.

    Also this isn't about him going to jail or not, it is about wether he should be the one to interpret the laws and constitutions of the US for the rest of his life, based on wether he is trustworthy and truthfull and all that.
  3. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    What other evidence do I need, are you telling me that's not enough ?
  4. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    Why did you kill all those orphans in 1806?
  5. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    Do you see how silly this is now ? This is politics in the United States, it was nothing more, nothing less. Democrats have lost most of the power, the last thing they really had was the courts, they have now lost that also.



    Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., served up a quick appetizer of the coming obstruction on the Senate floor. "It is near impossible that President Trump would select a nominee who isn’t hostile to our healthcare law and healthcare,” Schumer declared six hours before Trump said so much as the first letter of the nominee's first name. Schumer thinks it impossible for Trump to pick a nominee “who isn't hostile to a woman's freedom to make her own healthcare decisions.”

    Others, like Sens. **** Durbin, D-Ill., and Bob Casey, D-Pa., fell in line quickly promising to oppose a yet unnamed Supreme Court nominee.

    Going to oppose an unnamed Supreme Court Nominee, it didn't matter who it was man, it just mattered that he was a Republican. Honestly you could have picked the cleanest, most pure person in the world and Democrats would have opposed him no matter what. It's about retaining power. Granted **** Durbin, wasn't the only one who said he'd oppose anyone Trump picked no matter what.

    On top of all this, it was also backlash for the way the FBI handled the Hilary information previously, releasing the information right before a nomination.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  6. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

  7. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

    only how silly you are. who puts people in power as judges for life.
  8. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    Work on your reading comprehension, buddy. My whole point was that proof and truth don't come in a neat package when it comes to ****. If you look back you will find that you misquoted me, but that kind of misdirection is to be expected from someone who has such a tenuous grasp on logic.
  9. Extinctshun

    Extinctshun I need me some PIE!

    So i know that all the academic language you just used must make you feel like your logic is that much more valid, BUT you literally just teeter tottered through a bunch of rationality and assumption and tried to put it off as fact.

    At the end of the day, no matter what... when people start getting fired or thrown in prison on unbacked accusation, we are on a slippery slope.
    super71 likes this.
  10. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    ya sorry, I subscribe to innocent until proven guilty.

    that means no punishment of any kind unless they can be proven guilty. which includes no stopping people from getting jobs.

    you want him to not be on the supreme court then put forth some real evidence and not some sob story full of holes and all potential witnesses and character references speaking against her, with that said if he is proven guilty then they can lock him up for the rest of his life for all I care.

    when the worst thing you can "prove" about the guy is he used to get wasted in college this should not of been front page news...

    false accusations occur, real accusations occur, the point of the american justice system is to tell them apart, no country should subscribe to listen and belief unless you want the same treatment to be applied to yourself
    super71 likes this.
  11. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    Go through my post and show me where I "teeter tottering through rationality and assumption". If I feel like engaging someone that has a history of acting in bad faith, you might just force me to post the evidence that backs up my claims.

    Nobody is asking for him to be fired or thrown in prison on an unbacked accusation. My argument is that the accusation has already been assumed to be false without investigation and the case has already been closed with several witnesses and lines of questioning unexplored. This case is not "innocent until proven guilty", it's "innocent and let's stop talking about it".

    If you're really worried that an accused rapist might have his life ruined, I've got some good news for you:
    You live in America.
    Remember Brock Turner? The Harvard Swimmer who was caught in the middle of a ****?

  12. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    She didn't have proof, truth, or logic behind her, so what did she have to appeal to getting him convicted ?

    You literally said their is no way to prove she was *****, then try and argue superior logic ? I don't even need to address anything else, you proved my point, and don't even recognize it ?

    My whole premise is, if he was guilty show me some proof and i'm all for throwing him in prison. However i'm not for throwing a man in prison, with he said she said, and nothing to back up the accusation.

    Simple logic really, no need to over complicate things that are really simple.
  13. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    "Two graduate students on bicycles interrupted the assault and saw Turner on top of the victim, "who appeared to be asleep," according to the appeals court decision."

    Would you look at that buddy, proof, who would have thunk it. Are you saying this kid didn't have enough prison time ? If that's what your saying I totally agree, the kid was a piece of garbage and should be incarcerated for life. He also had two witnesses to the incident, and that's why he went to prison.

    Me personally, I wish he'd been taken out and shot, but that's not how we work.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    SPiEkY likes this.
  14. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    This is my whole premise, like where do we draw the line if he was convicted ? Next thing you know the government can start accusing people on accusations of treason with no evidence required. This is also why I tried explaining to Gerry by using him as the example.
  15. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    lol seriously what the Firk is it with you guys and your ridiculous definition of logic. Do you think a **** allegation isn't deemed credible unless the victim gets into a debate with the responding officer?

    What I am saying is that ****, in particular, brings up a lot of hard questions when it comes to the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" because in 99% of the cases it's impossible to prove one way or the other <-- this is the part that you are struggling with and it isn't a difficult concept. Unless there are eyewitnesses that aren't biased toward their friends (in the case of Brock Turner, he was only brought to court because some cyclists happened to be passing by the forest at 3am) these cases will always be one person's word against the other's. This means that the default stance of "innocent until proven guilty" lets rapists get away with ****. Rapists know they can get away with ****. You are helping rapists get away with **** when you refuse to acknowledge that a crime could take place even if there isn't concrete proof.
  16. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    I think it needs to be clarified, everyone is in agreement if their had been proof that he should have been convicted. The problem was, she had no proof, no witnesses, no date, no time, no address, literally nothing other than her accusation. I'm sorry i'm not willing to start the salem witch trials here, over he said she said.
  17. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    And if those cyclists hadn't been passing by you would be here in the exact same position saying his life shouldn't be ruined because of an allegation by some drunk slut.
  18. Thbigchief

    Thbigchief I need me some PIE!

    - The reality is if the scales of injustice are too far out of whack one way...they rarely swing back and stop perfectly in the middle. They typically go too far the other way like a pendulum. This is not true balance... but it more natural then people admit. If you think of moral/legal or social injustice as more of a "debt" then the idea of getting more then you are actually owed back after being robbed for a long period of time is while not fair ... not strange to see happen.

    - This typically results in the counter argument of "well then your just as bad...". Things like affirmative action come to mind, where some minorities even are offended by the concept but still understand why it's a concept. A debt is owed that can never really be repaid... but it doesn't feel good to just say... ok everything is equal now, when it isn't. It's all a tough debate, as it pertains to Kavanaugh ... some people just don't want him and some people do... you simply pick an agenda that suits your result. Him being confirmed or him not... the me too movement is trending so I don't find it hard to believe someone said ... I don't want this guy in and he could have even possibly done this act... lets air it out. People that did want him in did this and that to refute... What's lost is that this even has any traction due to the long period of time of a male dominated society... unfortunately this is not the cart you want to attach your horse of a movement too ... said by several womans rights leaders. This one is not clean, its a muddy water of a situation that will not help the political climate or the me too movement. A straight up lose lose scenario that left everyone feeling unsatisfied about.

    p.s. The next candidate for a significant office for the other side will likely be vet'd to the max... since they will expect a retaliation type background checking scenario. I feel bad for the next couple significant candidates.
  19. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    "because in 99% of the cases it's impossible to prove one way or the other" - wrong
    "Unless there are eyewitnesses that aren't biased toward their friends" - factually inaccurate
    "these cases will always be one person's word against the other's" - well the majority of **** cases have several things done as the victims don't wait 40 years to come out about it. this means interviews can be done, time lines established, evidence gathered from crime scenes.

    past that a he said/she said case is not without evidence, many cases go to court on nothing but that and result in convictions, police are trained to get accurate interviews from victims and the accused alike and pry to find any holes in the story looking for the truth and these can hold up in court and have been used to put many guilty and innocent behind bars or worse in some states.

    This means that the default stance of "innocent until proven guilty" lets rapists get away with **** - it's been proven time and time again that innocent men can and do get accussed of assault for a number of reasons, most often it's not actually a fault of the women, it's a simple mistake, take a recent case: https://www.dailywire.com/news/37028/she-said-he-assaulted-her-witnesses-room-said-it-ashe-schow in this scenario she simply took some meds mixed with alcohol and had effectively a nightmare, multiple people(her best friend included) saw nothing. she believes it but is most likely mistaken, this occurs with mistaken identity cases, drugged cases, and more, the victims simply believe he wrong person did it.

    past that you have the scenario of vengence/ and anger where the woman are simply using it to attack a man also within the last week: https://torontosun.com/news/world/mean-girls-face-lawsuit-over-false-sex-allegations-against-teen

    in the above mentioned case the girls simply "didn't like him" the way he looked or sounded and made false accusations to get him drove out of school.

    this used to be used against black men to get them hanged, and I for one don't wish to see times like that return.

    some statistics say as much as 6% of accusations in america can be proven false, nobody knows how many cannot be proven false but regardless I want every man and women to get their day in court, I won't let arithmetic play a factor in peoples lives and I leave that to facts and evidence and not twitter rage mobs who jump at shadows and see boogeymen behind every corner. These mobs are nothing better then the witch burners of the past.

    . . Rapists know they can get away with ****. You are helping rapists get away with **** when you refuse to acknowledge that a crime could take place even if there isn't concrete proof. - bull this line of thinking is ridiculous. a simple accusation of sexual assault let alone **** will end a mans career/friendsip/home life/etc, if he's convicted which is done multiple times every day, his life is over.

    sorry if I don't take this stuff as lightly as you, but regardless of gender this is serious for both sides, and I don't think reading about it in a blog is enough to convince me in a world where everyone lies and makes mistakes.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  20. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I feel it's important to reiterate as it may not be coming off in my stance thus far, I do not deny that men commit ****, nor do I deny that women commit **** as it's not a gender exclusive thing.

    I believe the best option we have in our countries as things stand today is innocent until proven guilty, and the basis of our existing court system. lynch mobs and mob justice is not even considerable as an alternative.
    SPiEkY likes this.

Share This Page