|
On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time.
I want to reiterate:
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.
Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
|
It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
|
I think painful is more accurate a description than surreal
|
On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote:
It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
|
On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: Show nested quote +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. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence?
Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent.
If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
This would treat rape the same way we currently treat murder and create guide lines of the gray areas.
Unintentional rape
Intentional rape
Violent rape
Non-violent rape
Etc....
Because at the end of the day you can't deny the empirical data presented. Two parties stating that sex occurred between them, but not all parties consent to it.
If the accused believes he was conned into having sex, then he needs the evidence for it much like the rape victim has to prove that sex happened between her and her attacker.
|
On November 09 2013 06:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote:
It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie. I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
What do you mean? Are you saying woman are capable of changing their mind or straigth up lying?????? THATS NOT TRUE
|
On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So what if he says he didnt give consent and she raped him? Who is guilty now?
|
On November 09 2013 06:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote:
It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie. I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
Have been incarcerated for it. Have been put on sex offender registries. Welcome to a 1000000000000000% destroyed life. You're far better off killing yourself at that point. All because of a lie someone told that apparently doesn't require evidence to back it up.
"You can sue for Libel!" That sounds sweet in theory but you don't understand what a libel lawsuit entails. By bringing up a libel lawsuit you've just opened your ENTIRE life to intense scrutiny. Every single thing you've ever done ever in your life is now going to be dragged out into the open for all to see and put under the largest magnifying glass you can imagine. Libel lawsuits aren't something you just do. The majority of the time it's not worth it. Even if you get some money from the lawsuit it's not worth the shitstorm that you just brought upon yourself.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: 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. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. This would treat rape the same way we currently treat murder and create guide lines of the gray areas. Unintentional rape Intentional rape Violent rape Non-violent rape Etc.... Because at the end of the day you can't deny the empirical data presented. Two parties stating that sex occurred between them, but not all parties consent to it. If the accused believes he was conned into having sex, then he needs the evidence for it much like the rape victim has to prove that sex happened between her and her attacker.
You clearly misunderstand the innocent until proven guilty system.
|
On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: 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. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not.
Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point.
It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
|
On November 09 2013 06:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote:
It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie. I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
He doesn't acknowledge anything, period. His replies are kind of sort of directed at people, but ultimately they are always just assertions that are often completely bizarre and nonsensical. When people try to engage him on that, the process just repeats.
|
On November 09 2013 06:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:24 Mothra wrote:
It's always a surreal experience watching people trying to reason with Thieving Magpie. I think the confusion stems from the fact that he doesn't acknowledge that lying is possible. A person can have consensual sex and then say it was not consensual. I don't believe it's common but it happens and certain people have been incarcerated for it. Not sure why the alleged victim's word constitutes evidence by itself according to this guy...
Or perhaps some kind of temporal confusion?
Clearly, Person A gets to decide whether Person A consents to sex or not. No courtroom or intimate partner has the right to decide Person A's consent for them. However, we are talking about Person A's past decision to consent or not consent. This decision is already made; Person A decided it at the time, and cannot retroactively change Past Person A's decision to consent or not to consent. Person A is no longer the ultimate authority.
|
i could swear Thieving Magpie is trying to justify something personal ... else he's trolling or something.
|
On November 09 2013 06:38 xM(Z wrote:
i could swear Thieving Magpie is trying to justify something personal ... else he's trolling or something.
The trolling is most likely the case.
|
I think something that would really help would be to make post rape medical examinations more available and raise awareness about them. It is often possible to observe and document evidence of forced entry. Unfortunately this does not address the cases of rape in which there was no physical overpowering required and tragically many victims are too embarrassed and scared to seek this avenue immediately and then it is too late.
Additionally it is important to note that the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence far exceeds the number of people whom are wrongly convicted of rape so logically one should be concerned about the larger portion of misstrials. but of course we have to keep both in mind.
|
On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: 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. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither.
The fuck does that even mean...
I'll use an example so simple that even a child could understand the logic. Put yourself in this story so you'll understand:
Your name is Bob, you meet this girl, Liz, you two go see a movie and then you go back to your place, you two end up having sex. Both of you consent at the time, everything that happens is perfectly legal.
The next morning, Liz wakes up in your bed, and feels guilty or unhappy with the events for whatever reason. Perhaps she cheated on her boyfriend, perhaps it didn't turn out as she hoped, perhaps something else. She leaves your room, feeling bad. She "retracts" her consent after the fact. She accuses you of rape, and you get to court.
In the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove that you raped her. She has to prove that she didn't give her consent. But she DID. If the judge were to just assume that she was saying the truth, YOU, Bob, would be prosecuted for a rape that you didn't commit, but that she accused you of.
You'd most likely do jail time for rape, despite having not raped anybody. That's why her saying that she was rape by you doesn't constitute evidence. People can say anything. And how would you defend yourself from it if she lied, Bob? How do you prove that she lied? Do you make her sign a contract, do you have a log of the events, do you film her agreeing to the terms of the exchange? You don't prove yourself to be innocent here. It has to be proven that you're guilty.
|
Logic doesnt work if you have been brainwashed by an ideology.
|
On November 09 2013 06:51 ComaDose wrote:
Additionally it is important to note that the number of rapists that are let off the hook for lack of evidence far exceeds the number of people whom are wrongly convicted of rape so logically one should be concerned about the larger portion of misstrials. but of course we have to keep both in mind.
Not that it doesn't happen, or even doesn't happen a lot, but doesn't the wording of that statement make it seem like any failed conviction of rape for lack of evidence is actually guilty but 'got away with it?'
Seems like a lot of slanted statements in this thread.
|
On November 09 2013 06:33 frogrubdown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: 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. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. If you believe neither, then you don't believe the accused that he's innocent. If you believe both, then you believe that the accused consented to sex while the other did not. Come on man, you can't really be that confused on this simple point. It's not just an issue of the man saying he consented and the woman saying she did not. It's a matter of the man saying she consented and the woman saying she did not. In this case the judge can neither believe both nor disbelieve both because each option results in a contradiction. One of them is lying (or at least speaking falsely) and thus far they are perfectly symmetrical from the judge's perspective.
Which is why I have said repeatedly that if Person A believes Person B is lying or is making a con or is trying to libel his name--that he can and should pursue it. His and her entire life will then be put in public view and we will no longer have the problem of "victim blaming" since both the charges of rape and the charges of false testimonies will be treated as two separate cases.
he said/she said arguments go nowhere and does not stick to evidence, the best way to simplify the issue is to parse it out.
Person A cannot consent for Person B nor can Person B consent for Person A. As such, Person A can only affirm Person A's consent while Person B can only affirm Person B's consent.
Person A and Person B is asked if they had sex: both affirm yes.
Person A is asked if he consented: He says yes.
Person B is asked if he consented: He says no.
By definition, rape occurred since none of the statements conflict.
If Person A believes he was hoodwinked by Person B, then Person A is under authority to make that accusation.
If both Person A and Person B did not consent to the sex act--then an investigation must be made as to why and how they both ended up having sex together. Why? Because then their statements conflict. If the testimonies conflict with each other, then one of them must be lying about consenting. You then investigate where did they have sex, when they had sex, and the narrative of their timelines.
Because then you could follow the paper trail. Whose place? If not someone's place, who paid for the room? Who paid for the drinks? Was there a bartender? Taxi driver? Etc... One can follow the paper trail of who pursued whom financially and it will make it clear who is lying about not giving consent.
Why am I suggesting this? Because having Person A state "No, Person B is wrong about the state of his consent" is an illogical fallacy. How does Person A know what consent Person B has? As people have said, Person A is not a mind reader. Person A can only affirm his own consent while Person B can only affirm his own consent. So having rape cases be judge on what Person A believes Person B's consent is simply leads to nothing.
If Person A wishes to accuse Person B of rape while Person B is also accusing Person A of rape, then the paper trail of expenditures and location of the sex act will clearly show who was pursuing whom and will quickly erase one of the two testimonies.
Other than counter accusing rape, what Person A also has at his disposal is a set of laws specifically in place to prevent people from lying about you and falsely accusing you of things. Those are called libel laws. If he believes that Person B is lying about events in an effort to malicious besmirch him, then he can use the laws already in place to protect against that.
|
On November 09 2013 06:53 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2013 06:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 09 2013 06:21 Djzapz wrote:On November 09 2013 06:19 Thieving Magpie wrote: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. As a judge, how do you know if the person consented or didn't? Because you're told? You're just defining rape here. Sex without consent. The judge knows what rape is, he/she just has no way to know if both parties consented at the time. I want to reiterate: 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. Both subjects affirm something. You assume one to be true. And you call that evidence? Because you either believe both, or you believe neither. The fuck does that even mean... I'll use an example so simple that even a child could understand the logic. Put yourself in this story so you'll understand: Your name is Bob, you meet this girl, Liz, you two go see a movie and then you go back to your place, you two end up having sex. Both of you consent at the time, everything that happens is perfectly legal. The next morning, Liz wakes up in your bed, and feels guilty or unhappy with the events for whatever reason. Perhaps she cheated on her boyfriend, perhaps it didn't turn out as she hoped, perhaps something else. She leaves your room, feeling bad. She "retracts" her consent after the fact. She accuses you of rape, and you get to court. In the US, you're innocent until proven guilty. She has to prove that you raped her. She has to prove that she didn't give her consent. But she DID. If the judge were to just assume that she was saying the truth, YOU, Bob, would be prosecuted for a rape that you didn't commit, but that she accused you of. You'd most likely do jail time for rape, despite having not raped anybody. That's why her saying that she was rape by you doesn't constitute evidence. People can say anything. And how would you defend yourself from it if she lied, Bob? How do you prove that she lied? Do you make her sign a contract, do you have a log of the events, do you film her agreeing to the terms of the exchange? You don't prove yourself to be innocent here. It has to be proven that you're guilty.
We already have laws that are to be used if people lie about you--that's called libel laws. You can use it at any time. It will open up both yours and the accused lives to public scrutiny showing you the boyfriend she cheated on, the depression she's going through, etc...
If you believe that a person is slandering you with lies, we already have laws for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
