Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Drunk Sex and Rape Drunk Sex and Rape

06-16-2014 , 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DudeImBetter
It could be that people feel rape, like murder, given the severity of the crime, should be held to a higher burden.

This is when I might say the consequences of a guilty verdict are grave for the accused, to which you might claim that the accused just go to school elsewhere, to which I say then why the f*** would an advocate of women push for a system that ensures rapists keep raping, to which you say at least the women we are 50.0001% sure were raped don't have to see their "rapists" and fly goes frothbomb calling everyone of differing opinion rape apologist pussies who #DUDELITERALLY have no idea what's going on, etc etc etc etc.
The consequences of being found "responsible" for a sexual assault on campus are no more severe than those for getting caught cheating on an exam.
06-16-2014 , 02:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascent
May I respond? I don't see how a 'he said, she said' incident meets even the 50.01% standard. To me it's closer to 0%. One person saying that something happened and the other person saying something didn't happen doesn't automatically make the accused upside down by 50.01%. A naked accusation without facts, evidence, and witnesses to back it up is proof of nothing.
0%? It's not a he said, she said tho, most people aren't immoral enough to go to the authorities to lie about being raped.
06-16-2014 , 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
It's a massive tell. Like, colleges discipline students for everything using that level, or less. Stop showing up to class with an attendance policy and argue against your bad grade/suspension/expulsion on the grounds that it's POSSIBLE you were there and just didn't sign in. See how that goes.

.
Apples to oranges. In the situation you describe, there is all kinds of evidence that can be demonstrated to show that the student wasn't in class. Lack of a sign in, or asking the other students "did you see John Doe at class on date ABC/CDF/XYZ" etc…
In the 'drunk sex and rape' situation there is typically only 2 people that know what happened- the man and the woman.

Quote:
People get indicted for crimes using that. Every civil case uses that, and given that college code of conduct hearings aren't criminal cases, it seems pretty logical to use the civil case standard.
Even in civil court accusation itself does not prove anything. It never has. That's the reason that up until very recent times these types of accusations were never prosecuted.

Quote:
But guys, when you like, sarcastically string out the zeroes(like a few of our MRA rape apologists have) to make it seem CRAZY like it's unique, it just makes you seem like you're unaware of how the world works. Literally unaware of how the world works. Probably because you're learning about this **** from absolute human garbage and/or trolls
Hey, man…I like to think I know how the world works. We as poker players rely on our knowledge of human nature and the way people think in the real world. And in the real world, when you start passing out the koolaid flavored drunk sex=rape and you couple it with a young lady that had too much to drink and feels buyers remorse, you have a disaster.
disclaimer- I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm speaking in generalities so please don't ban me.
06-16-2014 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I really don't get why people harp on the 50.01% legal burden of proof since there isn't any legal reason why it shouldn't be that.
Because people aren't generally for punishing people who are a coin flip to be innocent
06-16-2014 , 02:54 PM
Quote:
That's the reason that up until very recent times these types of accusations were never prosecuted.
Thanks, Obama
06-16-2014 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Because people aren't generally for punishing people who are a coin flip to be innocent
This is why, like I mentioned earlier, ikes and DudeImBetter are both FURIOUS about the terrible injustice of OJ Simpson having to pay money to the families of the people he killed.
06-16-2014 , 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oroku$aki
0%? It's not a he said, she said tho, most people aren't immoral enough to go to the authorities to lie about being raped.
Irrelevant. Why is an accuser's testimony more relevant than the testimony of the accused? It isn't. The reason for this should be obvious. If this were the case than all one would have to do to settle scores of any kind would be to accuse someone of a crime.
06-16-2014 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Because people aren't generally for punishing people who are a coin flip to be innocent
Someone call the American Bar Association and let them know that we've been doing civil trials all wrong.
06-16-2014 , 02:57 PM
Oh wait no that would be absurd, what actually happened is that DudeImBetter waded into the thread with some MRA bull****, got called out on it, decided that he would judo flip it and try to troll his betters with this kangaroo court bull****, and then he stuck to that troll for ****ing thousands of posts despite it making literally no sense at any level.
06-16-2014 , 02:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Someone call the American Bar Association and let them know that we've been doing civil trials all wrong.
Just to make sure we get this right, the standard in civil court is preponderance of the evidence.

Preponderance= the quality or fact of being greater in number, quantity, or importance.
06-16-2014 , 03:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
Oh wait no that would be absurd, what actually happened is that DudeImBetter waded into the thread with some MRA bull****, got called out on it, decided that he would judo flip it and try to troll his betters with this kangaroo court bull****, and then he stuck to that troll for ****ing thousands of posts despite it making literally no sense at any level.
What's wrong with MRA? That stands for Men's Rights Activist.
You seem to be implying that fighting for equal rights is a bad thing. Care to respond to your position on this?
06-16-2014 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascent
Irrelevant. Why is an accuser's testimony more relevant than the testimony of the accused? It isn't. The reason for this should be obvious. If this were the case than all one would have to do to settle scores of any kind would be to accuse someone of a crime.
Most people aren't immoral enough to act like this. Most non-sociopaths don't settle scores by breaking the law. That is to say, most people don't settle scores by breaking the law.

Last edited by Oroku$aki; 06-16-2014 at 03:07 PM.
06-16-2014 , 03:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascent
What's wrong with MRA? That stands for Men's Rights Activist.
You seem to be implying that fighting for equal rights is a bad thing. Care to respond to your position on this?
Fighting for the rights of men to rape women without consequence is not fighting for equal rights.
06-16-2014 , 03:04 PM
1) People getting framed for things is likely an unavoidable consequence of any sort of justice or discipline system, if the frame job is convincing enough a court might get it wrong. I don't know what you want to do about this, everyone agrees it's bad when a court gets a case wrong, but there's no way to completely eliminate that.

2) nascent, because ldo he's an MRA learning about this **** from the scum of the Earth, appears to think dudes do get punished just because there's an accusation(he's now switched from briefly complaining about the standard to insisting that rape claims don't meet that standard, like, generally? So why was the standard the problem?). No, man, there's like a trial or hearing or investigation of some sort. Now that you've been informed as to that, I assume this puts your fears to rest about the drunk sex=rape koolaid, which never existed and nobody has ever drank.
06-16-2014 , 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Fighting for the rights of men to rape women without consequence is not fighting for equal rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
No one is fighting for rights of men to rape women. But I suspect you already know that. Your tactics are transparent and predicable. Maybe we should play cards someday.

To be clear, what I'm asking specifically: why do you continue to use the term MRA in a pejorative connotation?
06-16-2014 , 03:10 PM
nascent, remember like earlier in this afternoon when I mocked you for bringing tired MRA nonsense into a thread already 3000 posts deep? Dude, we get it. Way ahead of you. You hate women. Congratulations. Shave off your gross goatee, wear a suit instead of a trenchcoat, ditch the fedora, it gets better.
06-16-2014 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
1) People getting framed for things is likely an unavoidable consequence of any sort of justice or discipline system, if the frame job is convincing enough a court might get it wrong. I don't know what you want to do about this, everyone agrees it's bad when a court gets a case wrong, but there's no way to completely eliminate that.

2) nascent, because ldo he's an MRA learning about this **** from the scum of the Earth, appears to think dudes do get punished just because there's an accusation(he's now switched from briefly complaining about the standard to insisting that rape claims don't meet that standard, like, generally? So why was the standard the problem?). No, man, there's like a trial or hearing or investigation of some sort. Now that you've been informed as to that, I assume this puts your fears to rest about the drunk sex=rape koolaid, which never existed and nobody has ever drank.
Problem is that the hearing/investigation, etc is completely worthless if evidence and/or witnesses are not required to punish or convict. Again, accusation in and of itself proves nothing. This is true whether or not 'most people' falsely accuse, or not.
06-16-2014 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikestoys
Because people aren't generally for punishing people who are a coin flip to be innocent
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
This is why, like I mentioned earlier, ikes and DudeImBetter are both FURIOUS about the terrible injustice of OJ Simpson having to pay money to the families of the people he killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Someone call the American Bar Association and let them know that we've been doing civil trials all wrong.
I mean yea these remarks. The only reason I've seen that the legal burden of proof should be higher is that it's a lot of money and a potential life changer for the accused student. While I'm sympathic to a 19-21 year old kid losing 30k or so in tuition, life changing cases are made on that burden of proof all the time. Billions of dollars change hands every year and people lose their jobs because a jury was 50.01% that X infringed on a copyright or broke a contract, or was found negligent in an accident. etc.
06-16-2014 , 03:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyWf
nascent, remember like earlier in this afternoon when I mocked you for bringing tired MRA nonsense into a thread already 3000 posts deep? Dude, we get it. Way ahead of you. You hate women. Congratulations. Shave off your gross goatee, wear a suit instead of a trenchcoat, ditch the fedora, it gets better.
Ridicule is one of the hallmarks of an irrational argument.
06-16-2014 , 03:15 PM
And the standard used to be higher.
06-16-2014 , 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascent
Problem is that the hearing/investigation, etc is completely worthless if evidence and/or witnesses are not required to punish or convict. Again, accusation in and of itself proves nothing. This is true whether or not 'most people' falsely accuse, or not.
Br0, sometimes we can just get the testimony of the accused and know that it's rape.
06-16-2014 , 03:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl
I mean yea these remarks. The only reason I've seen that the legal burden of proof should be higher is that it's a lot of money and a potential life changer for the accused student. While I'm sympathic to a 19-21 year old kid losing 30k or so in tuition, life changing cases are made on that burden of proof all the time. Billions of dollars change hands every year and people lose their jobs because a jury was 50.01% that X infringed on a copyright or broke a contract, or drunk drove into an accident etc. etc.
Preponderance of the evidence.

Evidence. You know, stuff like facts, witnesses, doctor's reports, pictures, tape recordings, et al. Accusation is not evidence.
06-16-2014 , 03:17 PM
ikes- But really you do think that the Goldman family should give that money back, right?
06-16-2014 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Br0, sometimes we can just get the testimony of the accused and know that it's rape.
How?
06-16-2014 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascent
Problem is that the hearing/investigation, etc is completely worthless if evidence and/or witnesses are not required to punish or convict. Again, accusation in and of itself proves nothing. This is true whether or not 'most people' falsely accuse, or not.
Yes, but most people don't. They don't bluff that much about being raped, they usually got the goods. Or bads, I should say.

      
m