We're on post 7300 and the closest thing any of the MRAs have gotten to having a ****ing point is hinting around a demand for a concession that women are capable of lying(incredibly, they can't even articulate that, it's all second order just table pounding rage at how mean liberals are).

Which, yes, obviously. We all knew that. Colleges know it too, that's why there is a hearing before disciplinary consequences are handed down.

So what?

There is a reason why the "liberal" side here is the only one to actually quote a college's policies. There's a reason why we aren't posting chain emails, or taking lawsuit allegations as incontrovertible fact, or more broadly just complaining about an imaginary epidemic of dudes getting thrown out of college and having their lives ruined and their names in the paper and probably have to go to prison just because some skank regretted sleeping with them the next morning.

You're the one who wants people gone. I think you can cope with having that error pointed out.

If that makes you the cool one then fair enough.

LOL, fly thinking im conservative leaning. Fly you don't know anything about me. Your just playing identity politics and badly.

1. I'm pro-choice, her body. her choice and 100% her responsibility. I think abortions and contraception should be free and available from a socialised health service. I'm against child benefit though.

2. I think the rich pay too little in taxes and that the state shouldn't top up low wages with benefits effectively subsidising poverty wages.

3. I'm a fan of citizens income or the state being an employer of last resort

4. I believe in religious freedom within the confines of the law.

5. I think possession of all drugs should be decriminalised. Cannabis and MDMA should be legalised. I would lower the drinking age to 16.

6. I'm a big believer in civil liberties. So things like due process and freedom of political assembly matter a lot to me. This is the main reason why oppose feminism, because it's authoritarian and anti human rights.

7. I think society is mostly sorted by socio-economic class not gender/race/sexual orientation. A matter which feminism largely ignores. In fact fly you try to rub my face in what class you percieve me to be from.

But do go on and tell me how reactionary I am.

That's another thing we see. Dudes who think they should be immune from criticism for their positions because of how they self-identify.

No, man. You think colleges should be prohibited from disciplining students who engaged in sexual misconduct, up to and including rape, and possibly other crimes, too. You that that is a necessary policy change because there is a shadowy conspiracy of feminists out here pursuing some hazily defined anti-male agenda. (note: this is my best effort at applying your stated concerns to the real world by running a gibberish to English translator, if you don't think those things, feel free to actually articulate a goddamn point)

It's the "my grandfather was in the RAF, how can I be a Nazi?" defense.

The same could be said of you. You self-identify as someone pursuing equality and tolerance. But you are just a bigot. Someone who thinks white men deserve punishing for past transgressions that they themselves did not commit. You are just as bad as people from Stormfront.

A bit strawmanny fly. I do think colleges shouldn't adjudicate cases where rape/sexual assualt is alledged. The matter is too serious and should be a CJS concern. That would apply to felony assault, robbery and you know other indictable/felony cases. You wouldn't have a murder case in the magistrates would you now.

The trick feminists (and yourself) have played is crying about a rape epidemic. One which is not supported by the facts. Then just using a blanket term such as sexual misconduct to exercise what you were really after which is control.

All the cases which Ikes has brought to our attention have one thing in common, the CJS wouldn't touch them. And the claims have all turned out to be utter horse****. Yet you and others still think they're rapists.

Do you think Sulkowicz was telling the truth fly? Do you think UVA case might just come right?

Lol, you really are deluded aren't you?

You're pathetically blatantly lying now.

LOL yeah just your typical progressive.

OK and like people have very patiently and repeatedly tried to explain to you, this is ****ing gibberish. You just took what I wrote and ran it back into gibberish! It's like legal mad libs(adjudicate! felony! indictment!).

When people ask "hey, uh, is this really what you mean?" your answer should be yes or no.

For example:

Yes, obviously, I absolutely do think a student who is accused of murdering another student should be subject to school discipline. Why on Earth shouldn't he be? DIB thought that was going to be a gotcha, too, lol. There is no college on Earth that would let someone stay in the dorms while out on bail after being arrested for murdering their roommate.

As is, it appears that you're afraid to say "yeah, that's what I mean, no discipline from schools for sex-related code violations", so instead you just rewrite the same ****ing nonsense that provoked the question in the first place.

You whined about me being strawmanny, for one thing. For another, what? You don't even know what you're talking about. Which cases would the "CJS" not touch? Hell, what cases are you referencing at all?

I have no idea if Sulkowicz was telling the truth, but you really gave up the ghost on not being an MRA throwing her name out there like that. Like I was saying, tells give it away.

Your question about the UVA "case" is, uh, difficult to answer. What case? "Come out right" how? Jesus Christ man, use your words.

@Fly

You're aware the Sulkowicz/Columbia thing was on national news right? I don't even know what an MRA is and I'm very familiar with that name.

Even your boy Cenk talks about it!

lol

Like, it's totally normal not to know what an MRA is. Even at the tail end of a 7000 post thread about... whatever it is this thread is about.

But if at the same time, if you're the sort of dude who stays up to date on the bête noires of that movement, maintaining a mental roster of "lying bitches"... What's the point?

Like, a normal person might be vaguely aware that there was a rape related controversy involving Columbia, and may even remember the name of the girl involved. But just throwing it out there, unprompted, without it being brought up recently? Dude is obviously nursing a grudge against that girl, in the cesspool of the internet that is gotnews and redpill she reigned briefly as public enemy #1 and so everyone does know her name.

What are they trying to achieve?

This is getting too funny Fly.

Yeah your typical feminist ruining progressives name. The fact you're ok with white men being punished today for transgressions comitted over 150years ago is astonishing.

Should I be able to punish Germans or Frenchmen for their transgressions against me.



You're a lawyer and you don't seem to understand the difference between felony/misdemeanour and indictable/summary. Jesus man, you're just terrible at this criminal stuff.

How is it gibberish that the most serious offences deserve to be heard in the courtroom and not in some college tribunal. This is legal stuff 101.

Now put in arrested and released and see if you come to the same conclusion fly. I know intellectual honesty isn't exactly your strong suit but if the police (let alone the DA) thought there wasn't a case worth pursuing why should the college hold it's own crappy tribunal.

It's not sex-related code violations, it's felony v misdemeanour. For example I would have no problems with colleges dealing with sexual harrassment. That would be a sex-related code violation and at a level which I'm sure college justice would be appropriate.

Again dishonest. The sulkowizc case the CJS handed back (meaning they thought it was FOS), the occidental case, the UVA case.

The only false rape allegation that they followed with was the Duke case. Even that didn't reach court and the assistant DA bringing the case was disbarred for being such a SJW (like you).

Stop acting like the colleges aren't eating out of the dustbins of justice on this one. And no they wouldn't do this **** for other crimes, it is just "rape".




Well I am 98% confident she is full of it. But I love how obviously didn't happen is no idea for you.

Everybody knows who she is fly. She has published herself quite a lot. Watched the porn video shes directed yet?

Well you and other SJWs have wanted to show that rape is epidemic and have so far managed to champion hoaxes. Maybe the fact it was a hoax was just the patriachy covering it's track with evidence.

You guys reckon that false rape allegations are only 2% right? Well what are the chances that the last 3 rape allegations you've championed turned out to be false fly?

I mean, man, you guys seem to run like ****. Or Maybe, you pick the farcical **** because it fits your agenda.

Ikes got it first post. Drunk sex= Rape when the woman regrets it. It's control, plain and simple. They shift responisibility from both partners onto to just the man.

Unprompted? This thread might as well be called lying bitches and the white knights defending them. This thread is about college rape, and yes fly she will always be relevant to this topic.

Sorry your crappy causes are coming to bite you in the ass.

Fly lives in a world where it's ok for the federal government to threaten schools with title ix for allowing people to ask their accuser questions. This is the insanity that we live in.

Yeah, like I said. Actual progressives don't talk like this, strawmanning about how liberals want to "punish" white people for their transgressions by, uh, expelling people who violate student codes of conduct.

That's a popular conservative caricature of progressive policies, though, again, we're literally just talking about whether a school has the authority to discipline students.

I understand what those words mean. What do you think the difference is?

I can't help but notice you still never answered my question "yes" or "no", you just reworded your nonsense. What a ****ing surprise.

OK, you don't mean arrested then. I'd guess "questioned and released" was what you meant? Arrested has a specific meaning. Again, it's so much work to try to take your nonsense and try to fit it into the real world.

The college tribunal has nothing to do with the police. The police do not enforce codes of conduct. College tribunals do not handle criminal proceedings. I cannot explain it better than that. Multiple people have explained this to you.

Ok. Now you're really getting somewhere sort of specific. I imagine you'll backtrack from this into gibberish soon, but let's unpack what you've written here:

You think the government should prohibit colleges from punishing students who are accused of committing felonies if that felony is also a violation of the code of conduct, but allow them to punish students who are accused of committing misdemeanors if that misdemeanor is also a violation of the code of conduct?

Like someone who is alleged to have committed a battery on another student, that's possibly grounds for a suspension. But if they use a deadly weapon, well, now suddenly they are immune to discipline? 1 gram below the felony drug level, well, not allowed to have drugs in the dorms. 1 gram over the felony level, though, and you're fine on that front?

Specifically in the realm of sex, uh, flesh out your proposal here. Sexual harassment can be dealt with by the college. But rape can't. So like, threatening to rape someone is suspendable, but actually raping someone isn't? What if a student reports a rape to the police, it turns out that sge wasn't actually raped, but she was sexually harassed. Can that guy be punished by the school?

Like was said at the start, you're obviously trying to come up with a system that prevents dudes from getting into trouble, and so it's just total gibberish based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how the justice system works.

I don't know that any of those were even reported to the police(the UVA case wasn't even reported to the college), what are you talking about?

"Handed back" is not legal terminology. You misunderstand the issues involved at a fundamental level. It's incredible.

Guys if I had consensual sex in my office at work I'd get fired, or at least written up. Is my boss a SJW sex-negative misandrist?

lol it just keeps getting better. Are we talking about sex in classrooms or dorm rooms (or simply homes) fly? Tell us how that's different.

We're talking about colleges enforcing their rules, and, I guess(seriously, still no real point) you guys are asking the government to provide some sort of limitation on those rules. flying-donkey is coming up with something related to felony vs. misdemeanor. You aren't even that specific. You seemed like you have a problem with the preponderance of evidence standard being used, but I think you walked that back.


But keeping it in colleges. If you have sober sex with a girl you aren't married to as a BYU student, regardless of location, you're getting in trouble with the university. Was Brigham Young the first tumblrista?

No I still have a problem with it, especially combined with absolutely no protections for defendants and required by the feds.

Fly using the "colleges can do whatever they want" line of argument, which I suppose means why even have a campus hearing process at all? Just kick the male out as soon as the woman files her claim, easy game and no need to schedule hearings around class schedules.

Lying bitches?

Well the conservatives have nailed it regarding you fly. I think you do just want to punish white men. So I side with conservatives on this one

The difference in the UK (and I'd imagine in the US) is the procedure for dealing with those offences. Indictable (not to be confused with indictment) means it's a crown court issue (jury+judge) and summary means its magistrate (3 magistrates). The magistrates is limited to the maximum sentence it can give.

But put simply it just sorts out not serious from serious.

Actually fly, you're the one seems to ignorant of the term arrested. Arrested does not equal charged or indicted. It means that you've been mirandarised (american) or placed under caution (UK).

So you can be arrested, questioned then released (and charges may or may not be pending). Arrested in this case just means the interaction with the police was involuntary so the detainee has the right to legal representation.

I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer Fly. Or was the CJS not your specialty.


I know this, what people can't seem to explain to you SJWs is that if the police want nothing to do with the case. That should be the end of the case. They dropped it for good reason. You're the one who wants the college to have a tribunal for rape cases, I'm the one who thinks that's a farce.



The School can punish students for commiting felonies. It just doesn't "investigate" them.

But lets go through your stupid examples one by one.

Well common battery cases can easily be dealt with outside of the legal system and most often are. So yes I have no problem with a tribunal in this case

No Fly, they're not immune to discipline. This case would be forwarded to the police and the student most likely expelled. This case will be matter of fact rather than law so pretty easy for the college to deal with.

Suspend whilst the police "investigate" and expel when the case gets pleaded down.

You already know my opinion on drugs but I would probably kick the person out of dorms (via tribunal) for possession and forward to police for possession with intent.

Oh, and punishment for the latter would be suspension then expulsion

Yep

Threatening to rape gets dealt with internally, rape gets forwarded to the police. Bear in mind if it gets pleaded down that's good enough for an expulsion (bearing in mind in all scenarios these people are in prison anyway).

Well that's a stupid scenario. In theory yes, but she would be making two seperate allegations on that one.

I would like to remind you that you are the one blathering on about how campus code of conducts are seperate from the justice system. Now remember that you keep banging on about that before implying that these college tribunals are in fact part of the CJS (which they are clearly not btw)

I know how the justice system works and I could take a good guess on how college tribunals work. I want a system that is fair. One that respects serious allegations deserve proper investigation and not a kangaroo court. It is not how civilised countries should operate fly.

You and the other SJWs seem to confuse "not being able to punish" with having the authority to investigate. The concept is quite simple, sorry it's so hard for you to understand.

Ok by handed back, I mean ceased any further investigations and not pressed any charges Fly. Seriously you don't get this fly. I know what you want and thats for colleges to be able to punish men ad hoc with little to no evidence backing the accusation.

Yea this is you not getting it again. Having consensual sex at work is not a criminal offence, but I would imagine it would be grounds for dismissal.

And getting kicked out of college (no refund I presume) and getting fired are two entirely different things.

And at least be honest and say If you had raped someone at your office. Man keep with the script. Then you would see how ******ed your line of logic is.

This is more legal mad libs. How do you know what the case will be?

LOL dude I wasn't asking for you to construct a fantasy world with you roleplaying a school dean in a world where discipline and criminal charges were mutually exclusive, I was providing those examples in a last ditch and ultimately futile effort to get you to understand that internal discipline and the criminal justice system aren't mutually exclusive.

Whoa whoa whoa.

Are you saying I can face negative consequences from an institution for doing something that isn't even AGAINST THE LAW? How is that possible? If you told the police "this person got wasted at happy hour and went back to their office to have sex" they absolutely would "hand that case back", they would not proceed with even questioning the accused.

But OK. Let's absolutely change it to a rape. If, at an office Christmas party, a secretary comes running out of an office, half naked, claiming that a coworker raped her, he's in the office with his pants off...

Should the manager have to wait for the trial to fire him?


Oh, and one other thing:
Wait, so you don't know? Then what the **** are you complaining about? Who gives a **** what some uneducated MRA "guesses" happens?

First off, if every woman who regretted drunk sex filed a rape claim, then we'd probably see millions of claims.

This is nonsensical. Both partners have responsibility to ensure consent. It really isn't difficult to secure consent, so claiming that this is too much of a burden is not convincing.

I don't have a problem with kicking out students whom a committee finds to be at least 51% probable of being guilty of sexual assault.

If you disagree, then what percentage seems right to you? 67%? 75%? 90%?

Only getting rid of students who are rapists beyond any reasonable doubt seems like a great idea...for rapists.