|
On November 09 2013 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 03:59 gedatsu wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes. What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?" That's why its called rape CULTURE
Not Rape Education
Not Rape Teachings
Not Rape Commands
Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit. A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too? Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it. There are many examples in nature of females going after males and males being victims of violence for their sex acts. But if you want to pick species "close" to humans, Bonobos have female dominance in their societies, Orangutans are solitary by nature, meet at up during mating season, have sex, then leave, etc... Males raping Females is not the norm in nature and at times the reverse is also true. To believe it is natural for males to be dominant is to be closed minded to the natural world.
Again with the strawmans. Please make an effort to reply to what I have actually said.
I haven't said a word about "dominance". I said that the males typically approach the females, who then agree or disagree to have sex. This happens with bonobos and it happens with orangutans. Orangutans, like gorillas, are interesting in that the alpha male usually has a lot of females coming to him - which is the equivalent of women coming on to George Clooney but not Bob who works at the supermarket. It happens more frequently with orangutans and gorillas than with humans, which is because those species have a higher degree of sexual dimorphism than we do. The less sexual dimorphism, the more the males have to do the suiting.
And with that, Blizzcon has started and I'll be out of here for at least 12 hours.
|
On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You believe its a biological imperative for men to chase women when you say that its Biological.
Imperative is stronger than perhaps he meant but I don't see what's controversial about this. Of course men pursue women, and women pursue men, that's how we still have a species, both sexes look around for good partners.
You believe that its women's fault that when they say no that they don't mean it enough when you say "And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no"
That's what he said, but he didn't mean the things you added. You could have read the rest of the quote? He was mocking you for thinking it's anyone's "fault" whether a woman consents or not. It's her fault because it's her choice, as we all have a right to choose what to do with our own body. Here is the rest of the quote which explains:
And yes, it's a woman's fault when she says no. People generally have responsibility over the words they choose to say. Who else do you think should be blamed for her saying no?
That's why its called Rape Culture. Because men feel that they have to go after girls (biological after all right??) and girls play hard to get because "no doesn't always mean no."
Girls play hard to get because they have sexual power too, and don't have to automatically bed anyone who asks. Girls don't play hard to get because "no doesn't always mean no," "no doesn't always mean no" because women and men can change their minds.
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes.
As far as I can tell this is a fabrication. I have been outside and it's true men alwaysoften pursue women, and sometimes women say no, and then sometimes men continue and the women agree and everybody squirts their baby ingredients together.
But the idea that women are somehow all being blamed for saying "no meaning no" instead of "no meaning yes" is just bizarre... rapes are happening and then the victims are being blamed for being raped instead of playing hard to get? Why wouldn't they just be blamed for being raped instead of being into it? Furthermore how do you know this is happening, or is it just a circular conspiracy theory?
That's why its called rape CULTURE
Not Rape Education
Not Rape Teachings
Not Rape Commands
Not Rape Orders
You can use whatever words you want, but just because you have a (buzz) word for something doesn't make it true, like calling Obama a communist doesn't change anything about the truth of whether he is a communist.
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Even if this were true, why does that make it rape culture? Why not reality tv culture? Why not prison industrial complex culture? It's the 21st century, we didn't get this far without realizing that rape is bad. What evidence is there that rape is so far ahead of all our other problems that you have to use this obnoxious buzzword? Is that supposed to raise awareness or just induce guilt without actually solving a problem that as far as I can tell hasn't been well-defined and or shown to exist.
|
On November 09 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken. Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case.
So Person A doesn't have to prove they didn't give consent? Any Person A who wants a ton of money/ill will can say yes to Person B's face, but then turn around and sue them for jail time and reparations any time they want? If that were true i wouldn't ever have sex with anyone. Why is the burden of proof that Person A wasn't giving consent put on Person B? Person A is the one bringing the case to trial the burden of proof should be on them. Is Person B culpable for having sex with someone who said yes to them? I would say no. Even if Person A was thinking no, or Person A chose to change her mind after the fact, Person B is not a mind reader and cannot see into the future. If it cannot be proven that Person A did not say yes at the time of coitus, then there is no case.
|
You are once again mistaking the word "Culture" with "independent action"
Independent action is an individual woman deciding to play hard to get or deciding to be sexually active.
Culture is the society thinking that men, in general, are sexually forward and that women, in general, play hard to get.
Because yes, there is prison culture--usually attributed as an extension of slavery perpetuated by a gap between the middle class and the lower class creating a systematic culture of crime dependent poor being given a criminal record preventing them from progressing up the economic food while being forced into free labor.
There are cultures that perpetuate many of the problems in western culture, Rape Culture being one of them.
|
On November 09 2013 04:46 DocM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 04:06 DocM wrote:On November 09 2013 03:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:23 DoctorM wrote:
To be frank, the only cause for contention (as I believe is what we can agree on), is the situation in which a man and a woman have a sex act and they disagree about whether there was mutual consent (regardless of who is the point of contention). We have been arguing quite a bit about other cases and that should stop.
I'm going to limit my argument to the US because that's where I live. I don't make any opinions about other countries policies.
In the US it is innocent until proven guilty, so if there is a disagreement I don't see how anyone can be convicted of rape unless there is absolute proof that one party did not give consent. A first person witness, a video or sound recording. That's all we got. It's not fair to either party, but it's the only way we can say 100% that someone was the perpetrator.
There is no culture argument, just one of justice. I guess it depends on how you see the case. Person A reports rape. Police ask Person B if sexual relations occurred with Person A, Person B verifies. Police arrest him for confirming sex happened. Person B then accuses Person A of slander--suggesting false testimony was presented to maliciously attack ones identity and/or personhood. In the current US system, the accusation of slander and the charge of rape are treated as one case despite my belief that it should be 2 separate cases. Person B does not have the ability to dictate the consent of Person A for much the same reason that Person A cannot dictate the consent of Person B. If Person B agrees that he consented, it does not mean that Person A consented. If treated as two cases, Person B would be required to provide evidence that Person A was maliciously attacking him in some form or fashion through lies. This is where the confusion comes around. There are people who believe Person B does not need evidence to accuse slander while asserting that Person's A's testimony be considered null without proof against it. It doesn't depend on anything. Either there was consent for Person A or there wasn't. Regardless of whether Person B can't prove that Person A is lying. Person A can't prove whether she gave consent at the time of coitus or not, therefore both cases should be thrown out. Besides, the burden of proof should be on Person A. Person B doesn't have to dictate Person A's consent, he is merely saying there is no proof that she did not give consent. If the truth cannot be determined no actions should be taken. Person A doesn't really have to "prove" she gave consent because consent is something given by person A or is not given by person A. What can be proved is whether sex happened or not. If both parties say that sex happened, and one party did not consent, then it is rape. If Person B has evidence that Person A is being slanderous, then Person B has to show proof of that because that is a different case. So Person A doesn't have to prove they didn't give consent? Any Person A who wants a ton of money/ill will can say yes to Person B's face, but then turn around and sue them for jail time and reparations any time they want? If that were true i wouldn't ever have sex with anyone. Why is the burden of proof that Person A wasn't giving consent put on Person B? Person A is the one bringing the case to trial the burden of proof should be on them. Is Person B culpable for having sex with someone who said yes to them? I would say no. Even if Person A was thinking no, or Person A chose to change her mind after the fact, Person B is not a mind reader and cannot see into the future. If it cannot be proven that Person A did not say yes at the time of coitus, then there is no case.
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
|
On November 09 2013 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You are once again mistaking the word "Culture" with "independent action"
Independent action is an individual woman deciding to play hard to get or deciding to be sexually active.
Culture is the society thinking that men, in general, are sexually forward and that women, in general, play hard to get.
Because yes, there is prison culture--usually attributed as an extension of slavery perpetuated by a gap between the middle class and the lower class creating a systematic culture of crime dependent poor being given a criminal record preventing them from progressing up the economic food while being forced into free labor.
There are cultures that perpetuate many of the problems in western culture, Rape Culture being one of them.
The fact that men are sexually forward and women conservative on average does have roots in biology and evolutionary psychology. Sexual contact is cheap for men and potentially very expensive for women. Though culture can have some effect, I'm afraid this simple fact will not change.
|
On November 09 2013 04:40 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 03:59 gedatsu wrote:On November 09 2013 03:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
And because men always push and women often say "no" meaning yes, when rape happens the woman gets blamed for saying no meaning no when her position in society is to say no meaning yes. What the hell does it even mean to get "blamed for saying no meaning no"? Blame is assigned for causing a fault. Everyone I've ever met agrees that women have the right to say no meaning no. Therefore there is no fault. Furthermore, nobody has assigned women to a "position to say no meaning yes". They are free to say whatever they want. We are only making the observation that sometimes they do say no meaning yes. I've never heard anyone react to a rape with "why did you say no meaning no, you were supposed to say no meaning yes!?" That's why its called rape CULTURE
Not Rape Education
Not Rape Teachings
Not Rape Commands
Not Rape Orders
No one is ordering men to rape much like no one is ordering women to play hard to get. Its a CULTURAL zeitgeist shared by both men and women as is the nature of all other cultural aspects of society. Its the reason why someone of your leaning actually believes there is a causal relationship between rape and clothing. Its the reason why someone like you believes its biological for males to go after females (Something not true in nature).
Its part of your culture. And much like many cultural beliefs, it is something passively ingrained into your psyche and not something being handed out like candy in holloween. There isn't some rape fairy telling men and women to rape/be raped. So trying to argue that women play hard to get and its their fault that a man gets confused is bullshit. A lot of bogus contained in here, but the bolded part actually made me laugh. Look at any of the species related to us. Which sex approaches which? That's right, the males approach the females. I have never heard of a species with sperm-producing males and birth-giving females which doesn't have this sexual dynamic, but feel free to give me an example. Or are you going to tell me that chimps and baboons have a rape CULTURE too? Again. Evolutionary psychology, you should look into it. There are many examples in nature of females going after males and males being victims of violence for their sex acts. But if you want to pick species "close" to humans, Bonobos have female dominance in their societies, Orangutans are solitary by nature, meet at up during mating season, have sex, then leave, etc... Males raping Females is not the norm in nature and at times the reverse is also true. To believe it is natural for males to be dominant is to be closed minded to the natural world. Again with the strawmans. Please make an effort to reply to what I have actually said. I haven't said a word about "dominance". I said that the males typically approach the females, who then agree or disagree to have sex. This happens with bonobos and it happens with orangutans. Orangutans, like gorillas, are interesting in that the alpha male usually has a lot of females coming to him - which is the equivalent of women coming on to George Clooney but not Bob who works at the supermarket. It happens more frequently with orangutans and gorillas than with humans, which is because those species have a higher degree of sexual dimorphism than we do. The less sexual dimorphism, the more the males have to do the suiting. And with that, Blizzcon has started and I'll be out of here for at least 12 hours.
Straw man? I copied and pasted word for word what you said. If you disagree with the conclusions what your statements lead to then stop making them.
|
To whoever says that are no rules in war, you are severely mistaken, there are always things to constrain your options other than the capacity to do them.
|
On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth.
If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
|
On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape.
If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
|
On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused?
Regardless of motive, my point is still valid. I'm not talking about cases where someone said that they didn't want to have sex before the sex act, and then another person says they did afterwards. I'm talking about a case where A says they didn't want to have sex after the sex act, and we don't know for certain what was said during the sex act.
Unless A has proof they said they didn't want to have sex before the sex act, then there is no case. I'm not saying that person B has an ability to dictate A's consent, just that B shouldn't be punished for a situation that we have no knowledge of. Because there are only two testimonies and they disagree with each other, and there is no other evidence that provides definitive proof as to one side or the other, then we cannot accurately say anything about the situation. If we can't accurately say anything about the situation, there is 0 proof of a rape. Our knowledge is only limited to the facts, namely, that there was coitus.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 09 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused? If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape. If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation.
This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
|
On November 09 2013 05:51 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused? If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape. If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation. This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying?
We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not.
Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not.
If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
|
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
|
On November 09 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:51 Myles wrote:On November 09 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused? If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape. If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation. This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying? We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not. Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not. If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
It is absurd to put the burden of proof on the accused. Better for a thousand guilty men to go free and all that.
|
On November 09 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:51 Myles wrote:On November 09 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused? If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape. If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation. This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying? We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not.Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not. If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
We are not assuming this. This is not a valid assumption. The order of events is incredibly relevant. We cannot assume that one person consented during or before the sex act if the other says otherwise.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 09 2013 06:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 05:51 Myles wrote:On November 09 2013 05:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 05:19 Twoflowers wrote:On November 09 2013 05:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Rape charges doesn't give a person money. Much like you can't sue someone for getting into a fight with you, you can't sue someone for fucking you. Rape charges puts people in jail.
If someone wants to perform acts of libel against you with false testimonies such as rape, then there will be evidence that they are performing acts of libel. If they say they didn't want to have sex with you, you telling them "yes you did" does not produce truth. If there would be evidence of libel I dare say, that there should be a lot more evidence for the rape, if it really had occured. So why should we change the way our juridical system works and shift the burcen of proof, if the accuser could simply present the evidence against the accused? If both of you agree that sex happened and consent is not mutual then it is rape. If the rapist believes that the victim is performing an act of libel and supposedly did a sexual con on him, the. He needs evidence for that accusation. This doesn't make any sense. Before I continue, let me make sure I understand what you're saying. If there is conflicting stories in the case of rape, with the accuser saying it was non-consensual while the accused says it was consensual, we are to assume the accuser is telling the truth while the accused is lying? We are to assume that one person consented while the other person did not. Person A cannot dictate what person B's consent is. Which means the accused does not dictate whether or not his accuser consented or not. If the accused believes he was a victim of a con, he can accuse the other person of setting him up to be libeled. That is a separate case from the rape charges. He then proves his accusation of malicious libel with evidence, in which case the rape charges can be reviewed after both trials finish.
The accused is saying the accuser consented to them. What you seem to be saying is that you can't dispute whether someone you had sex with consented. And if they say it was non-consent, without any proof either way, it's assumed that it was non-consent when that's the opposite of how burden of proof works in an innocent until proven guilty system.
|
A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
|
On November 09 2013 06:13 DocM wrote:
So why does the Rape charge need no evidence, while the libel one does? You fail to address this.
It does need evidence--did they have sex. If the had sex, and one did not consent, then it's rape.
If sex did not happen between the accused and the victim, then there's no evidence of rape.
In the scenario provided, both subjects affirm that sex occurred between them. One states that he consented, the other states that she did not. Hence, sex occurred without mutual consent.
If the accused believes he was hoodwinked into having sex, then he simply has to make that accusation and then prove it.
|
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works based on how many rape cases are thrown out for lack of evidence.
It is a real problem the lack of evidence that can be in rape cases but i believe in the current north american legal system if there is not enough evidence the charges are dropped in most cases. This is just but it is sad for the rape victims that cannot prove it. Additionally false rape claims (while a tiny number compared to unconvinced rapists) is also a problem that needs to be addressed and hopefully stopped.
However I stand firmly behind the point that a womans attire is no indication of her having given consent or not at the time in question and cannot be used as evidence to suggest she did.
On November 09 2013 06:18 Djzapz wrote:
A lot of "guilty until proven innocent" people here. Fantastic.
isn't that just magpie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
