Lol ikes forever and always.

Well... according to their student handbook: fair for starters. Do you think it's possible to prepare any sort of defense (gather witnesses, evidence that might support you, etc) in 24 hours?

edit: less than 24 hours really, that was accusation to decision time

Well the story the lawsuit laid out makes zero sense and there is for sure more to the story than that. So I'm not sure how you can draw any conclusions about the process from that extraordinarily one sided story.

On the other hand, some guy name Robby Suave told you it was "the most unfair campus rape investigation ever" soooooo

Tend to agree but millions of people bought the Rolling Stone U. of Virginia rape story, which was just as ludicrous and one-sided as this story. Actually worse, at least this story gives lip service to to the fact that we are only getting one side's version.

Sure. But this is the second time in like a week or two that ikes has breathlessly posted a Ricky Suave "article" that makes absolutely no sense and are basically tied for the worst journalism in history.

If you think that it makes any sense at all that there is only information in ONE of those sentences about the likelihood of his guilt, that's the problem. I guess maybe it's technically true that her being a lesbian makes her claim more likely to be true (and that's a maybe it could surely be the case that it isnt, it's not a simple situation) but IF that's the case then her being straight makes her claim LESS likely to be true. You want to have your cake and eat it too. It isn't misconstruing or putting words in your mouth. "She's a lesbian so she is more likely to be telling the truth about being raped" is an identical statement to "she is into guys so it's less likely she is telling the truth about being raped."

Most people would find that second statement disgusting. Wording it a different way makes it sound less disgusting to...oh let's go with "those with moronic tendencies." That should be safe.

But maybe thats just me being a piece of **** bigot

Kind of beating a dying horse here, but let's try some more of these:

1. Girl claims she is raped by a man, she has had consensual sex with ~100 guys by age 21
2. Girl claims she is raped by a man, she is married and has only had sex with her husband.

Would you say that "there is information in one of those circumstances that makes the man more likely to be guilty". If yes, then in a rape trial, do you think the accused should be allowed to bring up the fact that the victim had consensual sex w/ ~100 guys in the past?

Ikes. Revots. Anyone else.

I know you guys hate being called rape apologists and all.

Can you point to any post where you came down on the side of a rape victim?

And "of course this is terrible... but" doesn't count...

We are 10 thousand posts in. Should be easy.

wtf are you talking about? In the vast majority of cases the victim is telling the truth and the guy deserves to be suspended/expelled/sent to jail etc. No one has denied that. If you want a listing of cases where I was "on the side of the victim", I'd have to list almost every one.

You can't seem to get past the radical idea that you can hate rapists, and yet still feel that someone accused of even a heinous crime has rights. Even if they are "just" getting expelled, the process by which they are expelled should still be fair. In many cases, it isn't.

Why do you think law professors from Ivy League schools are writing editorials about how unfair and biased the process is towards the accused? Because they are "on the side" of the rapists?

Lol, why?

In Canada the victim's sexual history is not admissible in court. It's not considered relevant to the crime the accused is charged with. The accused saying "well I heard she's a whore who slept with 100 guys, therefore I didn't rape her." isn't very convincing anyway.

Do you think a victim's sexual history (and/or sexual reputation) should be admissible?

Sure, my best friend when I was 18 was raped. I came down on her side.

You, of course, still only have pathetic personal attacks and no argument.

We covered this. "Of course we are against rape" doesn't count. Show me a post.

That's well and good. The fact you have a glimmer of humanity is why people still engage you...

but any actual posts? No?

actual posts? see the entire penn state thread and go away already.

In this thread.

I would guess most colleges have rules in place that allows them to temporarily suspend a student pending an investigation and hearing if certain factors are present. Like a alleged violent crime and possible continued mental anguish to the alleged victim if the alleged is allowed to be around her or on campus.

To expand. We have had hundreds of different scenarios. From women being beaten so hard they cried while someone else had sex with them, to victims being punished for honor offences and discouraged from coming forward... yet somehow... you always seem to end up on the "not rape, girl lied, poor guy" side... a strange coincidence.

Edit. I am glad however you have taken the brave position of being against pedophilia. Well done.

lol so the bar just keeps getting higher and higher? Funny how that works. I originally believed the important parts of Jackie story. What's the new bar?

Incredible goalpost shift here.


I haven't read whatever Penn letter to the editor ikes and revots have mentioned, but lol that you guys are self-aware of your own ignorance enough to know that you can't articulate the argument yourself, you need to rely on the authority of others. And it's not a cite because those others said it better, ldo we never actually got a specific problem with Harvard's policy out of the MRA squad, just merely that experts vaguely were on "your side".

But no deference at all given to the experts on the other side. Funny how that works. Go check out some more books about misandry, revots.

And this is the ignorance you're just hoping no one notices? The person who hit the other person was not the person punished. I've explicitly said I don't think BYU's honor code policy is good policy.

But hey, you're rugby and you've got righteous anger... so you can say as much stupid **** as you want.

lol we know

Do I need to post my original question? I asked for a post in this thread. You post some anecdotal thing from your past and a completely different thread about a different topic...

I'm saying no true Scotsman because you are showing me an Italian and a thai.

Maybe I'm misremembering... but i thought you weren't pretty hard against the Jackie story... cite?

10000 posts. Shouldn't be hard.

need a new bar bro

I was hard against jackie once it became obvious she was lying.

And just to make it clear, your point her is vapid. We don't discuss random cases of rape here, and I specifically post cases that look like cases that were poorly decided.