In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
I'm just wondering today if it's, once and for all, time to take on mental health as a serious medical issue -- and stop stereotyping it as something we just want to brush under the rug and not really discuss. As a victim of a stalker who was mentally ill I can speak to this. I know for the most part the law is on the side of the mentally ill person -- not the victims. I think it's time to revisit mental health once and for all. Bring it out of the darkness. Call it what it is. Get people help. Get rid of the stigmas. Time to move forward.
Law is on the mentally unstable's side, yet we are going to remove stigma? The implication of that piece is that we need to punish mentally-ill people and that will remove the stigma...
Treat mental health seriously? This seems to just be a red herring thrown out to shift the debate. What does that even mean, how are we not treating mental health seriously currently, do we need to go back to the days of throwing people into asylums or are we asking society to foot the bill for counseling of 20% of the population?
Blaming things on mental illness is an intellectually lazy way to avoid talking about issues such as gun control, the interaction of man in society, and the fundamental flaws of society that lead to mental illness.
I'm just wondering today if it's, once and for all, time to take on mental health as a serious medical issue -- and stop stereotyping it as something we just want to brush under the rug and not really discuss. As a victim of a stalker who was mentally ill I can speak to this. I know for the most part the law is on the side of the mentally ill person -- not the victims. I think it's time to revisit mental health once and for all. Bring it out of the darkness. Call it what it is. Get people help. Get rid of the stigmas. Time to move forward.
Law is on the mentally unstable's side, yet we are going to remove stigma? The implication of that piece is that we need to punish mentally-ill people and that will remove the stigma...
Treat mental health seriously? This seems to just be a red herring thrown out to shift the debate. What does that even mean, how are we not treating mental health seriously currently, do we need to go back to the days of throwing people into asylums or are we asking society to foot the bill for counseling of 20% of the population?
Blaming things on mental illness is an intellectually lazy way to avoid talking about issues such as gun control, the interaction of man in society, and the fundamental flaws of society that lead to mental illness.
We still have asylums, they just don't have many mental health professionals and we call them prisons. They aren't very exclusive either, practically anyone can get in.
On June 16 2015 07:31 Slaughter wrote: Not really, he made the observation that most people who compete at the highest level of sports tend to be on the more extreme end of human variation spectrum for certain physical attributes anyway. It sounds like Fox is pretty much within the range of variation for females so I don't see the big deal as long as she wasn't lying about her hormone therapy and assignment surgery. What I find funny is people like Rousey claiming she won't fight her because of her advantages but yet she is always calling out "real men" and says she will fight them lol.
Yeah, but Fox is facing women who have trained their entire life. She's trained for like, what, 5 years? In that time she's already reached the highest competitive level, and just plain overwhelms most of her opponents. Most people would find that suspicious, because it's right in line with what would happen if a man with no fighting experience trained for a bit and joined a woman's league.
Because Rousey wants to fight and beat a man to prove she can. Fighting and beating someone who is supposed to be a woman but who she perceives to have the advantages of a man would make no sense at all. Or she just doesn't respect Fox, which is possible too given how she talks about her.
Isn't she ex-Military? That seems the exact opposite of "no fighting experience".
And there's plenty of MMA fighters who knew other disciplines, and then jumped into dominating MMA after a short time. How many years did it take Brock Lesnar to go from Pro Wrestler to UFC Champion? Two years?
On June 16 2015 08:07 Slaughter wrote: Shes "at the highest level?" Really? 5-1 is her record. The only thing you can really argue is that since she got the surgery and hormone therapy so late in life that her skeletal structure developed like a males. This could be advantageous IF her body as a man was outside of the female range (because there is a lot of overlap there) because then she would be able to theoretically build more muscle onto her frame then females can along with making it easier to build muscle.
I haven't looked into what consequences the body has for hormone swap but that Dr. that was quoted seemed to indicate that they lose bone and muscle mass (though it seems that you probably need to take it for longer then the 2 years that is currently required). If she had transitioned in her teens no one probably could argue against her.
Basically it seems like it depends on where her body fell on the scale before she transitioned since she did it late in life. If she was a male on the lower end for muscle mass and bone density she likely is still within the female range anyway. Its very possible even developing as a man her body wasn't exceptionally big in the first place. It sounds like she might have it easier when developing muscle mass and maintain a higher bone density for a while.
She's in the UFC. As far as mixed martial arts go, yeah, it's the highest level. Never claimed she was one of the top tier fighters, but she's in the highest league possible for that sport.
She's also almost 40 years old, which in the sports world is well past most people's prime. To be able to not only keep up, but overpowered others at that age, with the short amount of training she's had, is highly unusual.
I agree they'd should treat her case as an individual, and should not continue to just make generalized statements about the effects of hormone therapy. Fox might have no advantage at all, or she might have one. We have no way of knowing for sure without doing tests.
I'm just wondering today if it's, once and for all, time to take on mental health as a serious medical issue -- and stop stereotyping it as something we just want to brush under the rug and not really discuss. As a victim of a stalker who was mentally ill I can speak to this. I know for the most part the law is on the side of the mentally ill person -- not the victims. I think it's time to revisit mental health once and for all. Bring it out of the darkness. Call it what it is. Get people help. Get rid of the stigmas. Time to move forward.
Law is on the mentally unstable's side, yet we are going to remove stigma? The implication of that piece is that we need to punish mentally-ill people and that will remove the stigma...
Treat mental health seriously? This seems to just be a red herring thrown out to shift the debate. What does that even mean, how are we not treating mental health seriously currently, do we need to go back to the days of throwing people into asylums or are we asking society to foot the bill for counseling of 20% of the population?
Blaming things on mental illness is an intellectually lazy way to avoid talking about issues such as gun control, the interaction of man in society, and the fundamental flaws of society that lead to mental illness.
Personally I don't see why we focus so much on the motive of perpetrators and so little on the crime itself.
Criminals should be dealt with based on their danger to society, not on their intent.
I'm just wondering today if it's, once and for all, time to take on mental health as a serious medical issue -- and stop stereotyping it as something we just want to brush under the rug and not really discuss. As a victim of a stalker who was mentally ill I can speak to this. I know for the most part the law is on the side of the mentally ill person -- not the victims. I think it's time to revisit mental health once and for all. Bring it out of the darkness. Call it what it is. Get people help. Get rid of the stigmas. Time to move forward.
Law is on the mentally unstable's side, yet we are going to remove stigma? The implication of that piece is that we need to punish mentally-ill people and that will remove the stigma...
Treat mental health seriously? This seems to just be a red herring thrown out to shift the debate. What does that even mean, how are we not treating mental health seriously currently, do we need to go back to the days of throwing people into asylums or are we asking society to foot the bill for counseling of 20% of the population?
Blaming things on mental illness is an intellectually lazy way to avoid talking about issues such as gun control, the interaction of man in society, and the fundamental flaws of society that lead to mental illness.
Personally I don't see why we focus so much on the motive of perpetrators and so little on the crime itself.
Criminals should be dealt with based on their danger to society, not on their intent.
Because intent is very much related to their danger to society.
The vast majority of crimes as society has conceived of them require intent as a constituent element of the substance of their criminality so to say that we should ignore intent and look at the crime is to speak like Dr Seuss but without the rhyme.
Donald Trump '16! WE SHALL OVERCOMB! There will be hell toupee!
It's just a publicity stunt to promote his next beauty pageant. Really streamlines the search for his runningmate too.
Over-Under on how many times he's going to use his "You're Fired!" catchphrase to make fun of Obama leaving the White House... 50 times in the next two years.
It's just a publicity stunt to promote his next beauty pageant. Really streamlines the search for his runningmate too.
Over-Under on how many times he's going to use his "You're Fired!" catchphrase to make fun of Obama leaving the White House... 50 times in the next two years.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
There seems to be some confusion between the difference between motive and intent. There are claims that they are one in the same, but that is 100% not true. Motive NEVER has to be proven as an element of a crime; i.e. we do not care WHY a person committed the crime, only that they had the intent to do it (for the crimes that require intent to be shown). For example, to prove the crime of Larceny, most jurisdictions require that a defendant be found to have committed a trespassory taking and carrying away, the personal property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive. Intent in this situation refers to the specific intent to permanently deprive the person of their belongings. Motive is not even an issue; i.e. the prosecutor never has to prove that the person committed the crime BECAUSE of a specific reason, only that they did. Motive usually comes into play when looking at sentencing (whether a crime was committed because of hate, etc.). The closet thing to "motive" as an element of a crime might be to prove "malice" when looking at things like murder; but with any knowledge of the law, a person would know that "malice" means the INTENT to kill/cause great bodily harm/act with reckless disregard to the value of human life(NOT looking at the reason for the murder). Hope this helps some confusion.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
So many things wrong with this.
1) The reporting is pretty awful. They focused a lot on the accuser's sexual activity, which had no bearing on the actual case itself. Typical slut-shaming reporting. They also focused quite a bit on the possibility of rape accusers lying, even though it's been repeatedly proven that rape isn't falsely reported any more than any other crime.
2) This is a perfect example of colleges over-reacting to social sentiment. For years and years women haven't been able to reliably get justice for being sexually assaulted, but our generation is starting to push against that norm. It's obvious that Amherst doesn't want to deal with the PR hit they'd take if they did anything except side with the accuser here, which is the big problem. Men has almost no chance for justice on many college campuses. I was, as an RA in college, explicitly told by my employer that if I have sex with a woman who had been drinking at all that night, that I would be held responsible for sexual assault, even if I was drunk and did not initiate the act.
3) Even though this is a story that should really be reported on, the problem I have with Fox is that they never report the other side of the debate. For instance, I have known two different people who have been sexually assaulted during college; one was my fiance's friend, and the other was a transgender student that I knew. In both instances, neither the police nor the college did anything, despite plenty of evidence to bring charges in those cases. In the second case, the college refused to even investigate the matter. This is also a fairly common occurrence across campuses.
4) I think this whole thing is indicative of the fact that colleges/universities are terrible places to try to achieve justice. There really is no winning here; if you suspend/expel the guy, you've effectively ruled him guilty before a real trial and more or less ruined (or seriously hampered) a large chunk of his life. If you do nothing, then the accused can essentially get away with sexually assaulting someone without any adverse effects while the victim deals with everything that goes along with it, particularly since it's still not exactly easy to win a sexual assault case in court. You really just end up with no justice and a lot of chaos in the culture; quite a few colleges/universities over-react to these accusations just like this and treat these men like they're guilty without proving it, but others will do absolutely nothing and leave sexual assault victims to basically fend for themselves.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
So many things wrong with this.
1) The reporting is pretty awful. They focused a lot on the accuser's sexual activity, which had no bearing on the actual case itself. Typical slut-shaming reporting. They also focused quite a bit on the possibility of rape accusers lying, even though it's been repeatedly proven that rape isn't falsely reported any more than any other crime.
2) This is a perfect example of colleges over-reacting to social sentiment. For years and years women haven't been able to reliably get justice for being sexually assaulted, but our generation is starting to push against that norm. It's obvious that Amherst doesn't want to deal with the PR hit they'd take if they did anything except side with the accuser here, which is the big problem. Men has almost no chance for justice on many college campuses. I was, as an RA in college, explicitly told by my employer that if I have sex with a woman who had been drinking at all that night, that I would be held responsible for sexual assault, even if I was drunk and did not initiate the act.
3) Even though this is a story that should really be reported on, the problem I have with Fox is that they never report the other side of the debate. For instance, I have known two different people who have been sexually assaulted during college; one was my fiance's friend, and the other was a transgender student that I knew. In both instances, neither the police nor the college did anything, despite plenty of evidence to bring charges in those cases. In the second case, the college refused to even investigate the matter. This is also a fairly common occurrence across campuses.
4) I think this whole thing is indicative of the fact that colleges/universities are terrible places to try to achieve justice. There really is no winning here; if you suspend/expel the guy, you've effectively ruled him guilty before a real trial and more or less ruined (or seriously hampered) a large chunk of his life. If you do nothing, then the accused can essentially get away with sexually assaulting someone without any adverse effects while the victim deals with everything that goes along with it, particularly since it's still not exactly easy to win a sexual assault case in court. You really just end up with no justice and a lot of chaos in the culture; quite a few colleges/universities over-react to these accusations just like this and treat these men like they're guilty without proving it, but others will do absolutely nothing and leave sexual assault victims to basically fend for themselves.
I don't think there was any slut shaming, nor have women been unable to get justice until now. Those are radical feminist go-to's that I don't think apply here.
The alleged victim wasn't slut shamed. Her words that they cited are relevant as they clearly contradict her testimony. She claimed that she was traumatized and needed company, when in fact she called for company to pursue sex.
I wouldn't characterize the current climate as an over-reaction. There was never a need for a reaction at all. Sexual crimes were taken seriously long before the '1 in 5' myth made headlines. Our generation's outrage is against a phantom norm.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
So many things wrong with this.
1) The reporting is pretty awful. They focused a lot on the accuser's sexual activity, which had no bearing on the actual case itself. Typical slut-shaming reporting. They also focused quite a bit on the possibility of rape accusers lying, even though it's been repeatedly proven that rape isn't falsely reported any more than any other crime.
2) This is a perfect example of colleges over-reacting to social sentiment. For years and years women haven't been able to reliably get justice for being sexually assaulted, but our generation is starting to push against that norm. It's obvious that Amherst doesn't want to deal with the PR hit they'd take if they did anything except side with the accuser here, which is the big problem. Men has almost no chance for justice on many college campuses. I was, as an RA in college, explicitly told by my employer that if I have sex with a woman who had been drinking at all that night, that I would be held responsible for sexual assault, even if I was drunk and did not initiate the act.
3) Even though this is a story that should really be reported on, the problem I have with Fox is that they never report the other side of the debate. For instance, I have known two different people who have been sexually assaulted during college; one was my fiance's friend, and the other was a transgender student that I knew. In both instances, neither the police nor the college did anything, despite plenty of evidence to bring charges in those cases. In the second case, the college refused to even investigate the matter. This is also a fairly common occurrence across campuses.
4) I think this whole thing is indicative of the fact that colleges/universities are terrible places to try to achieve justice. There really is no winning here; if you suspend/expel the guy, you've effectively ruled him guilty before a real trial and more or less ruined (or seriously hampered) a large chunk of his life. If you do nothing, then the accused can essentially get away with sexually assaulting someone without any adverse effects while the victim deals with everything that goes along with it, particularly since it's still not exactly easy to win a sexual assault case in court. You really just end up with no justice and a lot of chaos in the culture; quite a few colleges/universities over-react to these accusations just like this and treat these men like they're guilty without proving it, but others will do absolutely nothing and leave sexual assault victims to basically fend for themselves.
I don't think there was any slut shaming, nor have women been unable to get justice until now. Those are radical feminist go-to's that I don't think apply here.
The alleged victim wasn't slut shamed. Her words that they cited are relevant as they clearly contradict her testimony. She claimed that she was traumatized and needed company, when in fact she called for company to pursue sex.
I wouldn't characterize the current climate as an over-reaction. There was never a need for a reaction at all. Sexual crimes were taken seriously long before the '1 in 5' myth made headlines. Our generation's outrage is against a phantom norm.
No it's not, but you can continue to lie to yourself all you want. That kind of attitude is precisely what perpetuates injustice in society today, so feel free to continue being part of the problem.
I mean seriously, if you can't realize that for countless decades it was far too difficult for women to get justice for sexual assault, then you just don't live in reality. This has nothing to do with that stupid "1 in 5" crap you threw in there as a poor way to discredit the whole argument. It's about the fact that when women are undeniably raped (e.g. a violent, sober encounter), it was and still can be far too difficult to get justice, especially if you're in the military or married.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
So many things wrong with this.
1) The reporting is pretty awful. They focused a lot on the accuser's sexual activity, which had no bearing on the actual case itself. Typical slut-shaming reporting. They also focused quite a bit on the possibility of rape accusers lying, even though it's been repeatedly proven that rape isn't falsely reported any more than any other crime.
2) This is a perfect example of colleges over-reacting to social sentiment. For years and years women haven't been able to reliably get justice for being sexually assaulted, but our generation is starting to push against that norm. It's obvious that Amherst doesn't want to deal with the PR hit they'd take if they did anything except side with the accuser here, which is the big problem. Men has almost no chance for justice on many college campuses. I was, as an RA in college, explicitly told by my employer that if I have sex with a woman who had been drinking at all that night, that I would be held responsible for sexual assault, even if I was drunk and did not initiate the act.
3) Even though this is a story that should really be reported on, the problem I have with Fox is that they never report the other side of the debate. For instance, I have known two different people who have been sexually assaulted during college; one was my fiance's friend, and the other was a transgender student that I knew. In both instances, neither the police nor the college did anything, despite plenty of evidence to bring charges in those cases. In the second case, the college refused to even investigate the matter. This is also a fairly common occurrence across campuses.
4) I think this whole thing is indicative of the fact that colleges/universities are terrible places to try to achieve justice. There really is no winning here; if you suspend/expel the guy, you've effectively ruled him guilty before a real trial and more or less ruined (or seriously hampered) a large chunk of his life. If you do nothing, then the accused can essentially get away with sexually assaulting someone without any adverse effects while the victim deals with everything that goes along with it, particularly since it's still not exactly easy to win a sexual assault case in court. You really just end up with no justice and a lot of chaos in the culture; quite a few colleges/universities over-react to these accusations just like this and treat these men like they're guilty without proving it, but others will do absolutely nothing and leave sexual assault victims to basically fend for themselves.
I don't think there was any slut shaming, nor have women been unable to get justice until now. Those are radical feminist go-to's that I don't think apply here.
The alleged victim wasn't slut shamed. Her words that they cited are relevant as they clearly contradict her testimony. She claimed that she was traumatized and needed company, when in fact she called for company to pursue sex.
I wouldn't characterize the current climate as an over-reaction. There was never a need for a reaction at all. Sexual crimes were taken seriously long before the '1 in 5' myth made headlines. Our generation's outrage is against a phantom norm.
No it's not, but you can continue to lie to yourself all you want. That kind of attitude is precisely what perpetuates injustice in society today, so feel free to continue being part of the problem.
I just hope people here aren't buying the snake oil he consistently pedals.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
So many things wrong with this.
1) The reporting is pretty awful. They focused a lot on the accuser's sexual activity, which had no bearing on the actual case itself. Typical slut-shaming reporting. They also focused quite a bit on the possibility of rape accusers lying, even though it's been repeatedly proven that rape isn't falsely reported any more than any other crime.
2) This is a perfect example of colleges over-reacting to social sentiment. For years and years women haven't been able to reliably get justice for being sexually assaulted, but our generation is starting to push against that norm. It's obvious that Amherst doesn't want to deal with the PR hit they'd take if they did anything except side with the accuser here, which is the big problem. Men has almost no chance for justice on many college campuses. I was, as an RA in college, explicitly told by my employer that if I have sex with a woman who had been drinking at all that night, that I would be held responsible for sexual assault, even if I was drunk and did not initiate the act.
3) Even though this is a story that should really be reported on, the problem I have with Fox is that they never report the other side of the debate. For instance, I have known two different people who have been sexually assaulted during college; one was my fiance's friend, and the other was a transgender student that I knew. In both instances, neither the police nor the college did anything, despite plenty of evidence to bring charges in those cases. In the second case, the college refused to even investigate the matter. This is also a fairly common occurrence across campuses.
4) I think this whole thing is indicative of the fact that colleges/universities are terrible places to try to achieve justice. There really is no winning here; if you suspend/expel the guy, you've effectively ruled him guilty before a real trial and more or less ruined (or seriously hampered) a large chunk of his life. If you do nothing, then the accused can essentially get away with sexually assaulting someone without any adverse effects while the victim deals with everything that goes along with it, particularly since it's still not exactly easy to win a sexual assault case in court. You really just end up with no justice and a lot of chaos in the culture; quite a few colleges/universities over-react to these accusations just like this and treat these men like they're guilty without proving it, but others will do absolutely nothing and leave sexual assault victims to basically fend for themselves.
I don't think there was any slut shaming, nor have women been unable to get justice until now. Those are radical feminist go-to's that I don't think apply here.
The alleged victim wasn't slut shamed. Her words that they cited are relevant as they clearly contradict her testimony. She claimed that she was traumatized and needed company, when in fact she called for company to pursue sex.
I wouldn't characterize the current climate as an over-reaction. There was never a need for a reaction at all. Sexual crimes were taken seriously long before the '1 in 5' myth made headlines. Our generation's outrage is against a phantom norm.
No it's not, but you can continue to lie to yourself all you want. That kind of attitude is precisely what perpetuates injustice in society today, so feel free to continue being part of the problem.
Yes it is. That's what the objective facts will tell you. Rape, including campus rape, has been on the decline (not an 'epidemic') and I have never lived in a world where rape wasn't taken seriously and been considered one of the more heinous crimes. Like all crimes, justice is not always served, but that does not excuse a manufactured witch-hunt.
If you and others like you continue to seek injustice and inequality on this matter, you'll continue to get disagreement from me.
Edit:
I mean seriously, if you can't realize that for countless decades it was far too difficult for women to get justice for sexual assault, then you just don't live in reality.
Yeah that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' was really... 'problematic.' All hail the new standard of 'listen and believe'.
Pretty gross. Obama bought into the extreme feminist propaganda that the media pushed a few years back, and justice is still getting short-changed. Liberal values aren't supposed to include witch-hunts.
So many things wrong with this.
1) The reporting is pretty awful. They focused a lot on the accuser's sexual activity, which had no bearing on the actual case itself. Typical slut-shaming reporting. They also focused quite a bit on the possibility of rape accusers lying, even though it's been repeatedly proven that rape isn't falsely reported any more than any other crime.
2) This is a perfect example of colleges over-reacting to social sentiment. For years and years women haven't been able to reliably get justice for being sexually assaulted, but our generation is starting to push against that norm. It's obvious that Amherst doesn't want to deal with the PR hit they'd take if they did anything except side with the accuser here, which is the big problem. Men has almost no chance for justice on many college campuses. I was, as an RA in college, explicitly told by my employer that if I have sex with a woman who had been drinking at all that night, that I would be held responsible for sexual assault, even if I was drunk and did not initiate the act.
3) Even though this is a story that should really be reported on, the problem I have with Fox is that they never report the other side of the debate. For instance, I have known two different people who have been sexually assaulted during college; one was my fiance's friend, and the other was a transgender student that I knew. In both instances, neither the police nor the college did anything, despite plenty of evidence to bring charges in those cases. In the second case, the college refused to even investigate the matter. This is also a fairly common occurrence across campuses.
4) I think this whole thing is indicative of the fact that colleges/universities are terrible places to try to achieve justice. There really is no winning here; if you suspend/expel the guy, you've effectively ruled him guilty before a real trial and more or less ruined (or seriously hampered) a large chunk of his life. If you do nothing, then the accused can essentially get away with sexually assaulting someone without any adverse effects while the victim deals with everything that goes along with it, particularly since it's still not exactly easy to win a sexual assault case in court. You really just end up with no justice and a lot of chaos in the culture; quite a few colleges/universities over-react to these accusations just like this and treat these men like they're guilty without proving it, but others will do absolutely nothing and leave sexual assault victims to basically fend for themselves.
I don't think there was any slut shaming, nor have women been unable to get justice until now. Those are radical feminist go-to's that I don't think apply here.
The alleged victim wasn't slut shamed. Her words that they cited are relevant as they clearly contradict her testimony. She claimed that she was traumatized and needed company, when in fact she called for company to pursue sex.
I wouldn't characterize the current climate as an over-reaction. There was never a need for a reaction at all. Sexual crimes were taken seriously long before the '1 in 5' myth made headlines. Our generation's outrage is against a phantom norm.
No it's not, but you can continue to lie to yourself all you want. That kind of attitude is precisely what perpetuates injustice in society today, so feel free to continue being part of the problem.
Yes it is. That's what the objective facts will tell you. Rape, including campus rape, has been on the decline (not an 'epidemic') and I have never lived in a world where rape wasn't taken seriously and been considered one of the more heinous crimes. Like all crimes, justice is not always served, but that does not excuse a manufactured witch-hunt.
If you and others like you continue to seek injustice and inequality on this matter, you'll continue to get disagreement from me.
I mean seriously, if you can't realize that for countless decades it was far too difficult for women to get justice for sexual assault, then you just don't live in reality.
Yeah that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' was really... 'problematic.' All hail the new standard of 'listen and believe'.
Yea, go ahead and stick your head in the sand while spouting bullshit strawmans. Seems to be your MO Johnny.
It's just a publicity stunt to promote his next beauty pageant. Really streamlines the search for his runningmate too.
Over-Under on how many times he's going to use his "You're Fired!" catchphrase to make fun of Obama leaving the White House... 50 times in the next two years.
Gold
Oh yes, the entire thing is gold
From the WSJ:
A Trump presidential campaign also complicates planning by NBC, the network that carries Mr. Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” show. NBC has determined that having Mr. Trump appear in a weekly entertainment program could require the network to provide a similar outlet to other candidates, an NBC official said.
The NBC official said Mr. Trump couldn’t participate in the production of “Celebrity Apprentice” as long as he was an active political candidate. With filming expected to begin this fall, Mr. Trump would have a number of months to mount his candidacy before having to choose whether to continue.
Should he drop out of the race, he could then be involved in production of the program, the NBC official said.
“We will re-evaluate Trump’s role as host of ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ should it become necessary, as we are committed to this franchise,” the NBC official said Tuesday.
The NBC official said planning for “Celebrity Apprentice” is continuing with the assumption Mr. Trump will participate. The show is being planned as a midseason replacement due to air in the winter or spring of 2016.
So basically, Trump running for president directly conflicts with his NBC contract on Celebrity Apprentice, but NBC isn't worried because they figure he'll drop out soon (lol).
And of course, in typical Trump fashion:
Mr. Trump offered a blistering critique of the Obama administration and of politicians in general. He promised to “build a great, great wall” on the Mexican border, which he said the Mexican government would finance, and present a tougher negotiating position with China. He offered a broad pledge to “make America great again.” He said he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, “get tough” on Islamic State militants and forbid Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
He offered no details on how he would accomplish any of those proposals.
On June 17 2015 04:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I have never lived in a world where rape wasn't taken seriously and been considered one of the more heinous crimes. Like all crimes, justice is not always served, but that does not excuse a manufactured witch-hunt.
If you and others like you continue to seek injustice and inequality on this matter, you'll continue to get disagreement from me.
In what world do you live? The world in which you live didn't even recognize marital rape as a legal concept barely twenty or thirty years ago. The concept that your wife could be raped didn't even exist, it was simply accepted and condoned.
EPT
