• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 00:42
CEST 06:42
KST 13:42
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL50Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?12FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports?
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL Help: rep cant save Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 649 users

What is Rape? - Page 19

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 17 18 19 20 21 56 Next
NicolBolas
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1388 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:43:51
August 23 2012 18:42 GMT
#361
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?


What evidence do you have that "weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time?" Last time I checked, most prosecutors only bring rape charges when they have the evidence to convict. That's one of the problems with prosecuting rape: because it's so hard to prove, you need a lot of evidence for it.

You can't just put a crying woman on the stand and expect to win the case. That's not how it works. Hell, in a case like that, the Judge might even throw the case out due to lack of evidence before the defense even presents a case.

You seem to have a lot of notions about how often false rape cases go to trial and how much evidence people are convicted on. Is this based on actual information, from some source you can present, or just your gut feelings about the matter?

Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.


Even if everything you say about rape cases is true, one injustice does not justify another.
So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:50:28
August 23 2012 18:43 GMT
#362
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether they're guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
Riedell VII
Profile Joined February 2012
United States12 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:44:35
August 23 2012 18:44 GMT
#363
On August 24 2012 03:36 KwarK wrote:
If you wish to tell her which situations to avoid in order to avoid exposing herself to potential rapists, I'd go with the kitchen. Keep her in the kitchen, if she leaves there then she's basically asking for it.


This seems reasonable. I will keep this in mind when I have a daughter.
JinDesu
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States3990 Posts
August 23 2012 18:45 GMT
#364
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.
Yargh
Byzantium
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States423 Posts
August 23 2012 18:46 GMT
#365
On August 24 2012 03:40 JinDesu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:31 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Holy shit you guys blew what I said out of proportion.... It's a simple fact that if you want to do dangerous shit you can get raped, just like if I walk down the same alley and get mugged that was my point... I never said she was "asking for it". This thread is full of such hero's of women... It's rather apparent this has turned from a discussion on how we define rape and what it means/fault placement to comparing fault with "gassing Jew's" as Kwark quickly pointed out.

Time to move onto another thread.

I'll take a lesson from this thread and tell my daughter (if I ever half one) that going down dark alley's is OK at night and you have nothing to worry about and it isn't her fault for being assaulted (mugged/raped etc) for doing so. We'll see how that pans out with the Mrs.


No - the concept is, a person who goes down a dark alley can get stabbed, but the law states that no stabbing is allowed. Therefore, regardless of the reason why you go down a dark alley, getting stab does not void the responsibility of the stabber.


Right, there seems to be a strange identification of a prudential concern regarding behavior (that as Kwark has pointed out is empirically unfounded) having anything at all to do with a moral responsibility for being a victim of such behavior. Even IF (and it is not) it were true that walking down dark alleyways was a particularly act would not make me somehow absolve the actual person committing the act.

Prudentially, if you want to avoid being a victim of an armed bank robbery, you ought not work as a bank teller. But that's irrelevant with respect to the moral issues with bank robbery.
MSL 2052
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
August 23 2012 18:46 GMT
#366
On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.

If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
NicolBolas
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1388 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:47:44
August 23 2012 18:46 GMT
#367
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


How many? Which ones?

Provide some evidence for your beliefs. If you're going to claim that the justice system simply does not work on rape cases, what evidence do you have for this besides your belief that the only way to prosecute them is with mind reading?

How many guilty men were set free from very deserved years in jail because of such "evidence?"

One injustice does not justify another.

On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.

If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.


How many? Where? Which ones? Can you provide actual links, or are you just using selection bias?
So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto
JinDesu
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States3990 Posts
August 23 2012 18:47 GMT
#368
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.

If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.


Then the issue therein lies with the defense lawyers.
Yargh
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42536 Posts
August 23 2012 18:49 GMT
#369
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether they're guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.

You're not getting it. The nonsense argument doesn't selectively only defend innocent people. It works whether they're innocent or not. You're saying that you shouldn't convict people in rape cases because they might potentially be innocent. What you're arguing for is letting a portion of people who would be found guilty of rape go because some of them may actually be innocent. That doesn't help the innocent people who aren't in that portion and it certainly doesn't help the women raped by the guilty people who are in that portion. It does nothing but exacerbate the problem.

If you genuinely believe that the chance of being found guilty of rape while innocent is high enough to start randomly finding people innocent regardless of the evidence then what you're arguing is simply an end to laws against rape.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 23 2012 18:50 GMT
#370
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.

But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.

No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.
Vega62a
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
946 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:52:33
August 23 2012 18:50 GMT
#371
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.

If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.


If you are honestly concerned about this, then you should be arguing to strengthen the laws against perjury, not weaken the laws against rape. For most people who are not hardened criminals, harsh sentences for perjury or false allegations will be a strong enough deterrent to avoid making a false accusation, because for most people, crime, as with any decision, is a measurement of risk vs reward.
Content of my posts reflects only my personal opinions, and not those of any employer or subsidiary
Riedell VII
Profile Joined February 2012
United States12 Posts
August 23 2012 18:51 GMT
#372
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


False convictions are indeed a tradgedy. Do you have any thoughts about the victims of unreported rapes? (An estimated 54% in the US from 2002 - 2006, according to Justice Department statistics.)
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
August 23 2012 18:51 GMT
#373
On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.

But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.

No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.

Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
Headshothank
Profile Joined June 2012
Canada11 Posts
August 23 2012 18:51 GMT
#374

What is rape
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more
What is rape
Oh baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

I'm sorry I had to


User was temp banned for this post.
No
NeMeSiS3
Profile Blog Joined February 2012
Canada2972 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:54:01
August 23 2012 18:52 GMT
#375
nm he was banned
FoTG fighting!
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42536 Posts
August 23 2012 18:53 GMT
#376
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.

But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.

No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.

Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.

Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
Crushinator
Profile Joined August 2011
Netherlands2138 Posts
August 23 2012 18:53 GMT
#377
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.

But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.

No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.

Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.


You are correct, sadly. If you want to discuss the problem of legal failures in rape cases, and the problem of false reports, we can do that. But there is no need to tie the promiscuity argument to this issue, it honestly seems rather bizarre to me.
QuanticHawk
Profile Blog Joined May 2007
United States32049 Posts
August 23 2012 18:54 GMT
#378
On August 24 2012 03:46 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:45 JinDesu wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


As a few other people said - rape convictions require a lot of evidence. If the counter argument to actual evidence is "well, she's promiscuous", and that let the defendant off the hook, something is seriously wrong here.

If rape convictions require a lot of evidence, then why do innocent people go to jail for it? We've had quite a few of those in Quebec in recent years and there's only 8 millions of us.


is this gonna get answered or wat
PROFESSIONAL GAMER - SEND ME OFFERS TO JOIN YOUR TEAM - USA USA USA
Djzapz
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
Canada10681 Posts
August 23 2012 18:56 GMT
#379
On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.

But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.

No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.

Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.

Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case.

You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail.
"My incompetence with power tools had been increasing exponentially over the course of 20 years spent inhaling experimental oven cleaners"
NicolBolas
Profile Blog Joined March 2009
United States1388 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-23 18:57:35
August 23 2012 18:56 GMT
#380
On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
On August 24 2012 03:30 KwarK wrote:
Okay, Djzapz, I'm going to explain how an argument works. If you wish to stand up in a room full of people and say "there is this one thing and that means this other thing" then you need a middle step where they are connected. For example if you wish to claim "she has sex and that means she lies about rape" then you need a middle step where you prove that people who have sex lie about rape. Otherwise you might as well say "she has brown hair, therefore she lies about rape, therefore the defendant is innocent".

If a lawyer successfully uses the promiscuity argument without explaining why it is that he wishes the jurors to believe that promiscuous people are more likely to lie about rape then it is a nonsense. If a man who would otherwise have been convicted of rape escapes based upon that nonsense then that is not a victory for justice, that's an argument in favour of abolishing trial by jury.

Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?

If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.

Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape.

So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone?

I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.

A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail.


I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.

But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.

No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always.

Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are.


Being innocent doesn't mean you're immune to prosecution. It simply means you're not guilty of what you're accused of.

The point of a trial is for the prosecution to present evidence of the defendant's guilt, which the defendant can pick apart. The defendant can likewise present evidence of their innocence. Being innocent doesn't mean you may not have to do these things.

Innocent people will be "gone after". The point of the justice system is to determine guilt or lack of evidence thereof, so that the innocent person is not punished without a fair hearing. This means that innocent people will be brought to trial, but they will have ample and fair opportunities to defend themselves with legitimate evidence and rational arguments.

Promiscuity of the accuser is not legitimate evidence or a rational argument of innocence, as you yourself accept. Thus, it should not be presented, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
So you know, cats are interesting. They are kind of like girls. If they come up and talk to you, it's great. But if you try to talk to them, it doesn't always go so well. - Shigeru Miyamoto
Prev 1 17 18 19 20 21 56 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 5h 18m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
NeuroSwarm 267
Nina 256
ProTech54
CosmosSc2 29
StarCraft: Brood War
Noble 63
Zeus 61
Aegong 58
Icarus 8
LuMiX 3
Dota 2
monkeys_forever455
League of Legends
JimRising 837
Other Games
summit1g8040
shahzam1223
Organizations
Other Games
BasetradeTV68
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 18 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH82
• practicex 38
• Sammyuel 23
• Kozan
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki32
• Diggity6
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1222
• masondota2680
• Stunt446
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
5h 18m
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
8h 18m
WardiTV European League
11h 18m
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
11h 18m
Big Brain Bouts
11h 18m
Korean StarCraft League
22h 18m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 5h
RSL Revival
1d 5h
FEL
1d 11h
RSL Revival
2 days
[ Show More ]
FEL
2 days
BSL: ProLeague
2 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.