• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 13:22
CEST 19:22
KST 02:22
  • 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
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed10Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll4Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension3Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7
StarCraft 2
General
The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Who will win EWC 2025? Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
Flash Announces (and Retracts) Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ BW General Discussion Starcraft in widescreen A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues Cosmonarchy Pro Showmatches CSL Xiamen International Invitational [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5
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 Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Future of Porn Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Summer Games Done Quick 2025!
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 797 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 States42576 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 States42576 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 States32051 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
WardiTV European League
16:00
Swiss Groups Day 4
Percival vs NightPhoenix
Shameless vs Nicoract
Krystianer vs Scarlett
ByuN vs uThermal
Harstem vs HeRoMaRinE
WardiTV688
TKL 249
IndyStarCraft 207
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
mouzHeroMarine 491
TKL 249
IndyStarCraft 207
UpATreeSC 161
BRAT_OK 73
MindelVK 32
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 24250
BeSt 1279
EffOrt 1066
PianO 458
Stork 408
firebathero 407
Light 188
Rush 185
Aegong 138
Mind 126
[ Show more ]
Trikslyr89
sSak 43
Movie 37
JulyZerg 33
Shinee 25
GoRush 20
yabsab 16
Terrorterran 13
scan(afreeca) 13
Shine 6
Bale 5
SilentControl 4
Dota 2
qojqva4032
monkeys_forever239
League of Legends
Dendi1685
Counter-Strike
sgares712
flusha241
pashabiceps92
Other Games
FrodaN3983
B2W.Neo1074
Beastyqt630
ceh9444
Lowko258
ToD190
oskar119
Skadoodle106
elazer91
Mew2King67
ArmadaUGS60
QueenE59
ForJumy 21
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick3272
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• davetesta10
• intothetv
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• IndyKCrew
• Kozan
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2472
League of Legends
• Nemesis3163
• Jankos1745
• TFBlade562
Other Games
• imaqtpie325
• Shiphtur149
Upcoming Events
PiGosaur Monday
6h 38m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
22h 38m
Replay Cast
1d 6h
The PondCast
1d 16h
WardiTV European League
1d 22h
Replay Cast
2 days
Epic.LAN
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
3 days
Epic.LAN
3 days
CSO Contender
3 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
Online Event
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Esports World Cup
6 days
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
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

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
ESL Pro League S22
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
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.