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

  1. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    I'm not advocating for lynch mobs or mob justice. I am advocating for the same thing that you profess to want: That an accuser and an accused should have an opportunity to meet on equal footing in a court of law and have the case heard.

    Kavanaugh's case did not proceed that way: The FBI was given a handful of days to make a conclusion and did not question several witnesses. Senators were not given any time to review the report. The examination was stacked in Kavanaugh's favour and was not allowed to proceed to court. And for several people here, that is enough to conclude that it is a "false allegation".

    You seem to be right about that 7% false-report statistic. Maybe less right if you try to massage it upwards. Maybe more right when you consider where those numbers come from and bring that number downward.

    The cases that you posted, the ones that come from the seven percent (that would make the other 93% credible by my unenlightened illogical math) they all hinged on testimony, he said vs she said. People lie. Sometimes accusers lie, sometimes the accused do. Sometimes witnesses are employees or close friends and they can lie as well. People can lie under oath. People can lie when they retract their previous statements. I'm glad it's not my job to make that judgement, but I refuse to call an allegation "false" until, at the very least, it's been examined by a court of jurors.

    Brock Turner's life was not ruined. He spent 3 months in jail. His father is still rich, he'll find new friends. Those friends will convince themselves that their rich pal was framed, his new girlfriend will convince herself that alcohol was to blame. And if he rapes someone again, we might not hear about it for another ten years.
  2. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    The brock turner case from what i know about it he was found guilty.

    Isn't the issue in his case that the punishment was incredibly poor.

    That's a seperate issue from listen and believe and i'm all for harsher punishments of rapists found guilty
  3. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    The central conflict here is, given how difficult to prove what actually happened in a **** case, should we err on the side of the accuser and potentially "ruin an innocent person's life" but also potentially bring an actual rapist to justice? Or should we err on the side of the accused, ensure that no innocent is wrongfully convicted and potentially allow rapists to walk free? If an actual proven rapist sees 3 months of jailtime for his crime, I'm not sure that a wrongful punishment of that severity, seven percent of the time, isn't worth getting a rapist off the street 93% of the time.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  4. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Re: Brock Turner

    The point is that even in a case where the man was FOUND GUILTY - his life was not "ruined." In fact, he got off EASY.

    The same "life ruined" argument was being made even by his own father that his son shouldn't have to suffer the consequences EVEN IF HE IS GUILTY OF a "20 minutes of action" because of what it might do to his son's life.


    It's really indicative of the attitudes of those who perpetrate this narrative that these accusations ruin lives: it's not about guilt. It's about the feeling that they should be above the law and due process. That someone they are so special and exemplary that they should not be subject to the same process as everyone else.

    "How DARE anyone accuse ME? Don't know they know who I am?! Why should I be held responsible for my actions when the quality of my being is so clearly superior to these other people?" is the subtext.


    So there's a GOP attack ad against the Democratic candidate here in AZ that slams her for protecting child molestors.

    What Sinema said was actually that she was concerned that some people might be innocent and didn't know the people they were soliciting were underage. In other words: innocent until proven guilty.

    But when a Democrat says that, they are slammed for being "soft on crime" etc. While Trump is cheered for supporting civil forfeiture (which is basically theft without due process).

    Nevermind that Sinema voted for the legislation they were discussing which was basically about harsher sentences for child sex charges AND that a Republican voted against it doesn't have the same attack ads being thrown at him.


    Also, if one really cared about falsely accused, we should be looking into blacks and how they represent "just 13% of the U.S. population, they constitute 47% of the approximately 2,000 exonerated individuals listed in the National Registry."

    And this is only those exonerated ones! Who knows exactly how many are falsely accused or still sitting behind bars for crimes they never committed.


    But of course, there is only such outrage from the right when a rich, white male might not be guilty, while they continue to support policies of racial profiling that lead to blacks and other minorities being harassed and even falsely accused.

    Is innocent until proven guilty for everyone? Or is it only for some? Do we just take this away when it's convenient?


    Lastly, I still don't understand why no one seems to care that Kavanaugh obviously lied over oath.

    I honestly don't care about the Ford thing - we don't know what happened, statue of limitations is up, etc.

    I care that there is a LITERAL LIAR on the Supreme Court. Though I guess that's to be expected since there's also one in the Oval Office.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  5. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    So in the case where your father is rich enough to essentially make it so you never have to work anyway, and you get a judge that effecrively lets you off, then your points are valid....to everyone else your life is ruined.

    Brock is hardly the hill you guys should die on imo, it's not so rare in america that rich people practicaly get away with murder, that's not exactly a **** issue more of an america issue, though the whole world has this particular issue so i don't know

    Seriously as I stated in this thread before i think brock got off way too easy, he was found guilty and likely should of spent much more time.

    Also please point to the exact point he lied under oath, it would be nice if you have proof but i'll accept assumptions currently
  6. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I missed a portion of your reply...as you went off on a tangent talking about innocent black men....sure, i ageee.

    You act like i don't care about innocent black men being falsely accused or going to prison for trumped up charges, not sure why you think i don't care about this or don't know those figures....but nobody else was talking about them...

    I also don't know much about the right attacking your specific senator in AZ...sounds rough...i don't disagree with you that her stance is good, i disagree that the rights attack on it during an election month is anything but politics. I don't really have a dog in that fight so only speaking of it from an outsiders perspective.

    I mean if we are intending to go off topic about right vs left....again....i have a number of fun things left politicans have been saying the last few weeks that i joke about with my friends.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  7. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    And what if not only is your father rich, but you yourself are also rich because you are a judge and you've been handpicked by another judge as well as a group of politicians who have a long history of siding with men over their female accusers? Do you think that maybe your life might not be ruined in that case? (this question is directly related to the opening post and highly relevant)
  8. davre

    davre The Benevolent Technofascist

    also lol:

    "Hey guys, I think it's dangerous for a system to stray from the principle of innocent until proven guilty"
    "What the hell is this, nobody was talking about black people, you're getting off topic!"
  9. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    That's far from my point...

    He was virtue signalling and mostly talking about stuff irrellevant to the conversation, though valid all the same.

    The topic up till now was one about **** cases and kavanagh, he then with the phrase "if you really cared about" down played any innocent men or women black or white that were falsely accused of sexual assault.

    They are very different topics with very different issues, though i don't mind discussing either.

    Regardless if that's the topic you wish to talk about as I said i don't like anyone being falsely accused or convicted gender and race have nothing to do with my opinion on it and i believe the way america has historically set black men up to fail outside the court system more then within(but both are pretty bad) in their country is terrible but shouting about it on twitter and rioting in the street won't fix anything and practical change needs to be made on a number of serious issues, politicians need to be lobied or replaced and education in lower income areas improved, views changed, etc.

    I'm a moderate left as far as my political alignment would go, with a liberalist ideology that also believes in meritocracy over alternatives. I agree with most of the points leftists like you will make but i don't subscribe to the oppression olympics.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    Alakhami likes this.
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Listen, @calisk, this topic is complex and has many nuances, and more importantly, participants. I am not just replying to you and I am allowed to express my own opinions as well.

    Anyway, the point is that the outrage about innocent until proven guilty from the Republicans rings hollow when they don't seem to care that their policies perpetuate this problem in other areas such as civil forfeiture, use of excessive force by police, Muslims, racial profiling by law enforcement, so on and so forth. Innocent until proven guilty is used by them only when it is convenient, and ignored in many other instances.

    In other words, I am not talking about you personally.

    And pretty much everything I said in my previous post after Brock Turner was intended to support this argument. Just because it didn't address what you specifically wrote in the way you personally feel is appropriate doesn't mean what I said is "irrelevant."

    Also, no one is "dying" on the Brock Turner hill, I am just saying it's just an example of how the ruining lives narrative is used even by those who are actually guilty - which tells you that it's not about innocent until proven guilty in those instances.


    As for obviously lying, just watch the hearing. If you don't think the man is lying then I don't know what else to say to you (maybe you believe that "banging a ho" is just the act of taking a hammer to a digging implement also?). If you haven't watched it, then I don't know why you are talking about this topic at all when you haven't engaged with the source material.
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  11. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    How do you know the people disagreeing with you are republicans? Could it be that you just accuse anyone that disagrees with you as being a "republican"? I get that hive mind feeling when I read your posts and replies.
  12. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    so then you are specifically referencing the year book comments as the lie I would think? they are the most likely times he committed purgery imo.

    I heard them.

    so the comments on his drinking. I have two opinions on. first he might not think he had a problem in drinking at college, thus it would not be a lie, and two why does it matter? even if he was a black out drunk in college that should not condemn a man for the rest of his life....if it did most of the guys and girls in my high school and college should be locked up I guess.

    as for the comments on the devils three way or what not, it was probably a three way I admit but again my group of friends used weird slang that was inaccurate to common slang as well, I cannot confirm it so again I won't condemn him on an assumption.

    his response to boofing being barfing is interesting and imo the most likely time he purged himself but I doubt anyone can prove it, regardless it's still possible it was just slang between his peers/ friends at the time thus why you'd have trouble proving it and again why does it matter? if was him taking drugs in college as a teenager it's largely irrelevant so long as it's been put long into his past, if it's not then there is an issue.

    I watched the interviews several times, and did not see or at least don't remember any comments in the year book or otherwise where the phrase "banging a ho" was commented on, I tried to look for the reference and could not find it, and i looked through 4 or 5 articles going over the year book and his comments trying to find this quote, I even started going through heavily biased leftist articles trying to find anyone addressing "banging a ho" and have not been able to find it, can you send me a link of his answer to this comment.

    anyway as I said my stance is innocent until proven guilty, this is a no exceptions thing I will not assume he's guilty because I feel like it, even if I think it's likely I will not condemn a man on "likely"

    also since I know most people would go there next, a teenager experimenting with alcohol and drugs is largely dismissed from my point of view as "kids will be kids" because it only effects themselves, if it gets to the points of sexual assault that is a different story
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018
  13. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    No, it couldn't.

    Because I am not accusing or assuming anything regarding political affiliations.

    I am talking about politicians who put an R next to their name of their own free will. Which is why I specifically mention policies and procedures (such as civil forfeiture and racial profiling) that are specifically governed by those in office and not determined by random people on the internet.

    Also, I am not sure that calisk disagrees with me on my point that Republican politicians are not consistent in their application of this principle of innocent until proven guilty. So I can't accuse him of being a Republican just because he disagrees with me when I don't know if he does...

    It is also why I specifically said to calisk, in the post you quoted, that I was not talking about him personally, especially since I know he is not American so there's no way he could even be a Republican. He's Canadian like me!

    So, no, I am not assuming/accusing him (or anyone else really) in the manner you suggest.


    Hope that clears it up for you.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    He also claimed to not have watched Ford's testimony but is contradicted by an aide on this.

    He also claimed to not know about the another accusation until it was on the media, but there's evidence to suggest he did:


    It's not irrelevant if he lied under oath. It's literally the WHOLE POINT.

    I didn't mean that he said that, it's just an example of the kind of thing he tried to pull with a more "modern" phrasing. I think you'd have to be lenient to the point of being unreasonable to believe that those words were as innocent as he claimed.

    Sure, if he was 6 years old then it'd be a different story. If he learned about those words today it might also be a different story. But within the context of his life, those terms he was asked about are not obscure, random words, and given the kind of culture he was embedded with as a young adult, there's basically ZERO chance he didn't know what they really meant.

    If it was one thing I wouldn't care, but there are so many moments like the ones we are discussing that it all just seems obviously phony to me. It can probably be argued that there's no smoking gun, but I feel like I am suffocating in the smoke here.


    Also, I generally consider not answering questions when asked (especially over and over) to be lying by omission, though I understand some people and the law have a different standard for this. For me, refusal to answer specific questions should be a MAJOR concern when you are basically being interviewed for a job as he was.


    (The following is not super important within the context of the discussion, but interesting enough to reply to.)

    I'd argue that it's a bit of a stretch to say drinking only affects the individual - there's ample evidence to show that excessive drinking is often very dangerous to others.

    Agreed with this point. Which is why he claimed that he never blacked out etc. because otherwise it'd leave the window open that he might have done something he doesn't remember.


    Anyway, my point was more that I found it weird that people (politicians in particular) seem so focused on the Ford thing when the hearings itself seemed to show a man who dodged questions at best and very likely simply lied. That seems far more important than whether Ford was lying: she isn't up for a lifetime position on the highest court in the land, he is.

    There's clearly a lot of political grandstanding/opportunism here (from both the Ds and Rs), but for me, it's almost impossible to know what the real story re: Ford is, and it's much more important to evaluate Kavanaugh's fit for the court. It just annoys me that the focus seems to be on her story and not whether this man should be on the Supreme Court.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018
  15. super71

    super71 I need me some PIE!

    I'm just not seeing how the Brock case is relevant, everyone agrees he should have gone to prison longer nobody is arguing that. Their wasn't enough evidence to prove Kavanaugh was guilty, it's really that simple

    Why don't one of you bring the guilty facts of Kavanaugh forward and we can discuss whether or not the facts point to him being guilty.

    Also, why shouldn't he be allowed on the court, give examples as to why he is unfit for the supreme court.

    I feel talking about those two topics will get us a lot further, because I agree that talking about whether or not he is fit to be a judge seems more realistic than her accusations, however the Democrats made it about her and not him.
  16. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    As I said, I believe that he lied under oath (already discussed) and he dodged questions repeatedly (lying by omission).

    I also personally dislike his statements that imply the President should be immune to investigation/charges, as well as the fact that he seems to be a conspiracy theorist, but those are less of a concern as the fact that I believe he lied under oath on multiple occasions.

    Keep in mind that:
    • He repeatedly dodged their questions
    • The White House refuses to release his entire record, leaving us with just a small fraction of his record, despite the Ds repeated requests for more information
    • What partial records were released were done with little lead time as the Rs wanted to rush this confirmation in before the mid-terms
    • When it became clear that the Rs were not going to play ball with this hearing, Ford was "released" (clearly a political move), and an investigation was all that Ford/Democrats requested
    • When Justice Thomas was accused, an investigation was immediately ordered by President Bush which prevented it from being a media circus
    • Instead, the Rs decided that no investigation was required and try to make it about her (requesting her testimony in a non-investigative capacity, etc.)
    • All of this is not even considering that this probably would not have happened had the Rs not played dirty with Garland, or if Trump had the sense to nominate a centrist instead of someone so obviously biased and partisan
    In other words, the White House, Kav and the Rs shares at least equal blame for the focus being on her instead of on him.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018
    Alakhami likes this.
  17. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    For me, it is relevant to the discussion that transpired in 2 ways:
    1. It is relevant to the idea that accusations (true or otherwise) can ruin lives, what we see is that even in the case of a TRUE accusation, he got off easy
    2. How some people saw Brock Turner, including his own father, especially before his conviction mirrors how some believe about Kavanaugh, specifically that it doesn't matter if Kavanaugh is guilty, he should be on the Supreme Court
    That said, it's not super relevant as to the greater question of whether Kavanaugh is a fit for the Supreme Court.
  18. profhulk

    profhulk Forum Royalty

    From what I can gather from the kavanaugh and Brock turner cases. Brock Turner had two eye witnesses(Swedish exchange students who caught him doing the deed) testify against him and it was in 2015. Multiple people testified that Brock Turner's reputation was already tarnished by accounts of alcohol abuse and past alleged assaults. Kavanaugh's case took place how many decades ago? Where are the eye witnesses to the alleged assault? From what I can learn about Kavanaugh he has a large community of people that can testify to the integrity of his character. All information considered the situation in question looks like a democratic character assassination to prevent another conservative supreme court justice from being elected I call bullsht. Society is cultivating a "cry wolf" generation of citizens who convict anyone based on public opinion as long as the story sounds good and fits the narrative. Call this rising generation "brainwashed" and ready to mob anyone that says the right trigger words to arouse the wrath of the indoctrinated masses who are chomping at the bit to call you a "racist, rapist, sexist, ****, xenophobic, (add future labels that will be socially engineered into the following generations).
  19. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    Interestingly, Kavanaugh also has these (tho both the GOP and the FBI didn't seem to pay any credence). And both Turner and Kavanaugh also had people testify to his good character.

    The primary difference between the two is there was solid evidence in the case of Turner. After his conviction basically no one defended him anymore except his father.

    Anyway, as I said, I don't think focusing on the Ford thing makes any sense. We are unlikely to know the true story at this point.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2018
  20. Extinctshun

    Extinctshun I need me some PIE!

    So... What idiot have you seen make that claim? Truly. I want to see evidence from you that someone has made it clear that EVEN IF Brett Kavanaugh ***** a young girl, that he should be on the Supreme Court.

    Dude. You are spot Firking on. I give it 15 years TOPS before we hit a civil war. AND GUESS WHAT LIBS.. YALL DONT HAVE ANY GUNS!!

Share This Page