The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
Also, if my friend told me so-and-so hit him, mugged him, etc. I would believe him. I think molst people would too. I can't help but wonder if this is one of those stigmas associated to victims of sexual abuse that I frequently hear about.
yeah. I have a lot of respect for people who speak openly about their sexual abuse despite the scrutiny, slut shaming, and protection of the abuser that society handles it with. I've never had anyone question the domestic violence I experienced and if I did when I was still figuring it out and was emotionally confused about it, I probably would have never talked about it again and thus would have continued to blame myself for it instead of seeking therapy and educating myself about the sociology of abuse.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
You don't know what these words mean.
You argue that if someone tells you they've been raped, you shouldn't automatically believe them. I'm showing you what that would look like. Unless you're some kind of Vulcan, I don't think that this would be your response.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
I'm not really planning to get married or get in any kind of relationship. I know my views are at odds with society's, and I wouldn't want to put someone in the position of only having someone who avoids judgment to confide in.
But this is one of the few principles I hold closely and you'd have a hard time convincing me to change it. Innocent until proven guilty is a BFD.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Yes people file false reports. If my wife told me she'd been raped, I'm not going to assume she's lying.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
I'm not really planning to get married or get in any kind of relationship. I know my views are at odds with society's, and I wouldn't want to put someone in the position of only having someone who avoids judgment to confide in.
But this is one of the few principles I hold closely and you'd have a hard time convincing me to change it. Innocent until proven guilty is a BFD.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
You don't know what these words mean.
You argue that if someone tells you they've been raped, you shouldn't automatically believe them. I'm showing you what that would look like. Unless you're some kind of Vulcan, I don't think that this would be your response.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Yes people file false reports. If my wife told me she'd been raped, I'm not going to assume she's lying.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
I'm not really planning to get married or get in any kind of relationship. I know my views are at odds with society's, and I wouldn't want to put someone in the position of only having someone who avoids judgment to confide in.
But this is one of the few principles I hold closely and you'd have a hard time convincing me to change it. Innocent until proven guilty is a BFD.
If you are a member of the police force it is.
Or you think the founders of the US had a point when they put that in.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Yes people file false reports. If my wife told me she'd been raped, I'm not going to assume she's lying.
There you go again. No one is saying this.
When someone can't debate with you they have to resort to strawmans you know how this works.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
You don't know what these words mean.
You argue that if someone tells you they've been raped, you shouldn't automatically believe them. I'm showing you what that would look like. Unless you're some kind of Vulcan, I don't think that this would be your response.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
If you're wife/ female friend thinks you don't believe her, she will be unimaginably hurt.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Yes people file false reports. If my wife told me she'd been raped, I'm not going to assume she's lying.
There you go again. No one is saying this.
When someone can't debate with you they have to resort to strawmans you know how this works.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
You don't know what these words mean.
You argue that if someone tells you they've been raped, you shouldn't automatically believe them. I'm showing you what that would look like. Unless you're some kind of Vulcan, I don't think that this would be your response.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
If you're wife/ female friend thinks you don't believe her, she will be unimaginably hurt.
If I ever found myself in a relationship with someone, they would understand my view on judgment before I would get serious with them.
Some people seem to forget his victim is in his corner as well. .
His victim is not "in his corner". His victim has spent her entire life since age 13 being "Oh yeah, you're that chick who had Roman Polanski's cock in her ass when she was a teenager." She wants to move past it and not have to deal with it constantly.
Not sure how you get from that to "in his corner."
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Jesus fucking christ, are you guys seriously telling me that if your wife came up to you and said "On my way home from work i was raped" You would be thinking to yourself "I'm gonna need more evidence that. No one pulls the wool over the eyes of Sherlock "Jackass" Holmes."
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
You don't know what these words mean.
You argue that if someone tells you they've been raped, you shouldn't automatically believe them. I'm showing you what that would look like. Unless you're some kind of Vulcan, I don't think that this would be your response.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
If you're wife/ female friend thinks you don't believe her, she will be unimaginably hurt.
If I ever found myself in a relationship with someone, they would understand my view on judgment before I would get serious with them.
Some people seem to forget his victim is in his corner as well. .
His victim is not "in his corner". His victim has spent her entire life since age 13 being "Oh yeah, you're that chick who had Roman Polanski's cock in her ass when she was a teenager." She wants to move past it and not have to deal with it constantly.
Not sure how you get from that to "in his corner."
She's forgiven him, formally requested all charges be dropped, and written an article in the Times about the subject, which isn't something you do to get the limelight off of you.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
No. There is a difference between the police conducting a neutral investigation and the accused's workplace and boss saying "let's wait for the courts to decide", and the defensive reaction of "Let's assume the accuser is a lying cunt until she proves otherwise" - unlike every other crime in the US.
The stigma against abuse victims has nothing to do with the minority of false accusations (which are at the same rate as every other crime in the US). It has to do with a long cultural and legal history of assuming that the victim has to prove she's not a lying cunt who deserved it anyway. (Don't even get started on the stigma against MALE victims of abuse. It wasn't until a couple of decades ago that states recognized men COULD be raped.)
HushLittleBaby is not really saying "if someone tells you she was raped, that's enough evidence to throw the guy in jail." S/he's saying that victims are often met with defensive questioning: Oh, are you sure it was rape? He wouldn't do a thing like that. Did you may misinterpret it? I don't know, is that really rape rape? But why didn't you call the police? Etcetera etcetera.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
No. There is a difference between the police conducting a neutral investigation and the accused's workplace and boss saying "let's wait for the courts to decide", and the defensive reaction of "Let's assume the accuser is a lying cunt until she proves otherwise" - unlike every other crime in the US.
The stigma against abuse victims has nothing to do with the minority of false accusations (which are at the same rate as every other crime in the US). It has to do with a long cultural and legal history of assuming that the victim has to prove she's not a lying cunt who deserved it anyway. (Don't even get started on the stigma against MALE victims of abuse. It wasn't until a couple of decades ago that states recognized men COULD be raped.)
HushLittleBaby is not really saying "if someone tells you she was raped, that's enough evidence to throw the guy in jail." S/he's saying that victims are often met with defensive questioning: Oh, are you sure it was rape? He wouldn't do a thing like that. Did you may misinterpret it? I don't know, is that really rape rape? But why didn't you call the police? Etcetera etcetera.
I want citations for every part of your post as well as I'd like you to actually read what those in opposition are saying.
oh god, the demand for citations. She's not quoting stats, Deshadow, she's summarising common knowledge surrounding sex crimes and how they're handled by society. You don't get to demand cites for that. That's just acting the dick.
While I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to you as a teenager, I don't think you're capable of discussing sex crimes rationally as a result of it. I really don't think you realise how incredibly backasswards your position is. As someone has pointed out, no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently, but you're arguing that they should be and failing to articulate a logical reason why.
oh god, the demand for citations. She's not quoting stats, Deshadow, she's summarising common knowledge surrounding sex crimes and how they're handled by society. You don't get to demand cites for that. That's just acting the dick.
While I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to you as a teenager, I don't think you're capable of discussing sex crimes rationally as a result of it. I really don't think you realise how incredibly backasswards your position is. As someone has pointed out, no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently, but you're arguing that they should be and failing to articulate a logical reason why.
mythago is making the claim that there are the same amount of false reports on sexual assault as there are other crimes something I have never seen cited before. Asking for proof of this claim isn't unreasonable especially when in these thread before claims have been made by both sides that had no proof of or came about from misreading statistical analysis.
Your second paragraph makes claims that are completely wrong and also misinterpret my position that can easily be read in this thread. Seriously this thread is three pages long can people read it before making accusations that are untrue.
I want citations for every part of your post as well as I'd like you to actually read what those in opposition are saying.
Oh, no, after you, my dear Alphonse. How about a citation from the fellow who said that the woman Polanski raped is "in his corner"? Or the citation proving that suspicion of women who claim to be raped would go away if false reports dropped to zero? Oh, wait. We're playing the game of "once you disagree with me I can demand you cite everything you say, but people who already agreed with me are off the hook."
I have read what people are saying, thanks. I also understand the difference between how the legal system should treat accusations of sexual assault - i.e., with an investigation and presumption of innocence, like any other crime - versus a helpful response when a friend or loved one says "I was raped."
Also to point out "no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged."
I do just from personal experience from formerly working at the sheriff's department I've seen every one of those made as a claim and come back to be untrue.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Yes people file false reports. If my wife told me she'd been raped, I'm not going to assume she's lying.
There you go again. No one is saying this.
When someone can't debate with you they have to resort to strawmans you know how this works.
You need a dictionary.
Actually I think you do, but it'd probably be faster for you to read the fallacy section in the D&D rules thread.
deliberate exaggeration of an opponent's position to make it easier to attack: "Evolutionists suppose that things simply fell together by chance - a blind watchmaker!". This is a huge distortion of the Darwinist view - if you can't argue against the actual point being made, don't post.
I used exaggerated language, i did not exaggerate your train of thought.
So let me do this again as clear as i can.
You say "You should offer support without believing, because Innocent until proven guilty.
I say that this is wrong because
1) Saying "I believe that man is innocent until i see evidence otherwise" is Exactly the same as saying "I believe you are lying until i see evidence otherwise."
2) If the position of 1 isn't taken by the state, innocent people will be locked up. If the position of 1 is taken, guilty people will go free. We choose one, because in America we believe that freedom is of immeasurable value, so it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to deprive 1 innocent man of his freedom. I agree with you that this is the best position for the government to take.
But, here is where i disagree with you:
3) If the position of 1 is taken by someone that has
A) close ties to the victim and
No power over the accused,
than immense harm could be done to the victim, assuming the accuser is a victim. If you have no power over the accused, then no damage can erroneously be done to the accused if the accuser is lying. This is why you shouldn't assume innocent until proven guilty if you fulfill A and B. Because there is harm if the accuser is telling the truth and you don't believe them, but there is no harm if the accuser is lying and you believe them. Therefore, no possibility of abuse of power.
If you Don't fulfill A, then you should assume innocence because public opinion is a dangerous thing and leads to vigilante's. If you don't fulfill B, then you should presume innocence due to the risk of abuse of power.
I want citations for every part of your post as well as I'd like you to actually read what those in opposition are saying.
Oh, no, after you, my dear Alphonse. How about a citation from the fellow who said that the woman Polanski raped is "in his corner"? Or the citation proving that suspicion of women who claim to be raped would go away if false reports dropped to zero? Oh, wait. We're playing the game of "once you disagree with me I can demand you cite everything you say, but people who already agreed with me are off the hook."
I have read what people are saying, thanks. I also understand the difference between how the legal system should treat accusations of sexual assault - i.e., with an investigation and presumption of innocence, like any other crime - versus a helpful response when a friend or loved one says "I was raped."
His wikipedia article is where I formed my information about. To the italicized part I never claimed that. Actually that was a strawman made against my claim thanks for playing though.
*edit also you still didn't cite what I asked for. Linking other articles that have nothing to do with it is not a citation sorry. If anything its more of a oh hey look over there argument.
Also to point out "no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged."
I do just from personal experience from formerly working at the sheriff's department I've seen every one of those made as a claim and come back to be untrue.
Sure. ALL crimes have a certain level of false reports (particularly when insurance is involved).
But we don't live in a culture where there's a particular four-letter slur for a person who lends their car to friends. Not many people who say "Yeah, when I was a teenager my car got stolen" suddenly get peppered with questions about how maybe the guy who took it thought it was a gift, or whether they secretly wanted it to get stolen, or whether it was really theft theft because they left the keys in the ignition, it wasn't like somebody broke a window or something.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
No one likes to think their friend/son/father is a rapist, so they assume they're innocent. This means that every rape conviction is assumed to be a false accusation, regardless of what the court says. The only way for the stigma against abuse victims to go away is if they stopped reporting altogether, not if the minority of women who file false charges suddenly got their shit together and stopped lying.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
Yes people file false reports. If my wife told me she'd been raped, I'm not going to assume she's lying.
There you go again. No one is saying this.
When someone can't debate with you they have to resort to strawmans you know how this works.
You need a dictionary.
Actually I think you do, but it'd probably be faster for you to read the fallacy section in the D&D rules thread.
deliberate exaggeration of an opponent's position to make it easier to attack: "Evolutionists suppose that things simply fell together by chance - a blind watchmaker!". This is a huge distortion of the Darwinist view - if you can't argue against the actual point being made, don't post.
I used exaggerated language, i did not exaggerate your train of thought.
So let me do this again as clear as i can.
You say "You should offer support without believing, because Innocent until proven guilty.
I say that this is wrong because
1) Saying "I believe that man is innocent until i see evidence otherwise" is Exactly the same as saying "I believe you are lying until i see evidence otherwise."
2) If the position of 1 isn't taken by the state, innocent people will be locked up. If the position of 1 is taken, guilty people will go free. We choose one, because in America we believe that freedom is of immeasurable value, so it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to deprive 1 innocent man of his freedom. I agree with you that this is the best position for the government to take.
But, here is where i disagree with you:
3) If the position of 1 is taken by someone that has
A) close ties to the victim and
No power over the accused,
than immense harm could be done to the victim, assuming the accuser is a victim. If you have no power over the accused, then no damage can erroneously be done to the accused if the accuser is lying. This is why you shouldn't assume innocent until proven guilty if you fulfill A and B. Because there is harm if the accuser is telling the truth and you don't believe them, but there is no harm if the accuser is lying and you believe them. Therefore, no possibility of abuse of power.
If you Don't fulfill A, then you should assume innocence because public opinion is a dangerous thing and leads to vigilante's. If you don't fulfill B, then you should presume innocence due to the risk of abuse of power.
Posts
And the irrational belief that people never lie is why even after being proven innocent the accused become victims.
You're coming dangerously close to saying rape accusations should always be treated as always the truth unlike every other crime in the US.
By family members, yes. Obviously, the police should remain impartial.
And now you go off on an irrational tangent without actually reading what people are saying.
Do you believe people ever file false reports? Do you realize these people have friends and family members as well?
You don't know what these words mean.
You argue that if someone tells you they've been raped, you shouldn't automatically believe them. I'm showing you what that would look like. Unless you're some kind of Vulcan, I don't think that this would be your response.
I'm not really planning to get married or get in any kind of relationship. I know my views are at odds with society's, and I wouldn't want to put someone in the position of only having someone who avoids judgment to confide in.
But this is one of the few principles I hold closely and you'd have a hard time convincing me to change it. Innocent until proven guilty is a BFD.
If you are a member of the police force it is.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
There you go again. No one is saying this.
Or you think the founders of the US had a point when they put that in.
When someone can't debate with you they have to resort to strawmans you know how this works.
If you're wife/ female friend thinks you don't believe her, she will be unimaginably hurt.
You need a dictionary.
If I ever found myself in a relationship with someone, they would understand my view on judgment before I would get serious with them.
His victim is not "in his corner". His victim has spent her entire life since age 13 being "Oh yeah, you're that chick who had Roman Polanski's cock in her ass when she was a teenager." She wants to move past it and not have to deal with it constantly.
Not sure how you get from that to "in his corner."
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Perhaps you shouldn't be in a relationship.
I just said that.
Yea, I'm agreeing with you.
Actually I think you do, but it'd probably be faster for you to read the fallacy section in the D&D rules thread.
She's forgiven him, formally requested all charges be dropped, and written an article in the Times about the subject, which isn't something you do to get the limelight off of you.
Yeah a mistake when quoting multiple people.
No. There is a difference between the police conducting a neutral investigation and the accused's workplace and boss saying "let's wait for the courts to decide", and the defensive reaction of "Let's assume the accuser is a lying cunt until she proves otherwise" - unlike every other crime in the US.
The stigma against abuse victims has nothing to do with the minority of false accusations (which are at the same rate as every other crime in the US). It has to do with a long cultural and legal history of assuming that the victim has to prove she's not a lying cunt who deserved it anyway. (Don't even get started on the stigma against MALE victims of abuse. It wasn't until a couple of decades ago that states recognized men COULD be raped.)
HushLittleBaby is not really saying "if someone tells you she was raped, that's enough evidence to throw the guy in jail." S/he's saying that victims are often met with defensive questioning: Oh, are you sure it was rape? He wouldn't do a thing like that. Did you may misinterpret it? I don't know, is that really rape rape? But why didn't you call the police? Etcetera etcetera.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I want citations for every part of your post as well as I'd like you to actually read what those in opposition are saying.
Classy.
While I have a lot of sympathy for what happened to you as a teenager, I don't think you're capable of discussing sex crimes rationally as a result of it. I really don't think you realise how incredibly backasswards your position is. As someone has pointed out, no-one starts off by disbelieving someone who claims their house was broken into or their car stolen or that they got mugged. Sex crimes shouldn't be treated any differently, but you're arguing that they should be and failing to articulate a logical reason why.
mythago is making the claim that there are the same amount of false reports on sexual assault as there are other crimes something I have never seen cited before. Asking for proof of this claim isn't unreasonable especially when in these thread before claims have been made by both sides that had no proof of or came about from misreading statistical analysis.
Your second paragraph makes claims that are completely wrong and also misinterpret my position that can easily be read in this thread. Seriously this thread is three pages long can people read it before making accusations that are untrue.
Oh, no, after you, my dear Alphonse. How about a citation from the fellow who said that the woman Polanski raped is "in his corner"? Or the citation proving that suspicion of women who claim to be raped would go away if false reports dropped to zero? Oh, wait. We're playing the game of "once you disagree with me I can demand you cite everything you say, but people who already agreed with me are off the hook."
I have read what people are saying, thanks. I also understand the difference between how the legal system should treat accusations of sexual assault - i.e., with an investigation and presumption of innocence, like any other crime - versus a helpful response when a friend or loved one says "I was raped."
Here's the common-law definition of rape, which has changed in the US by statute slowly.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I do just from personal experience from formerly working at the sheriff's department I've seen every one of those made as a claim and come back to be untrue.
I used exaggerated language, i did not exaggerate your train of thought.
So let me do this again as clear as i can.
You say "You should offer support without believing, because Innocent until proven guilty.
I say that this is wrong because
1) Saying "I believe that man is innocent until i see evidence otherwise" is Exactly the same as saying "I believe you are lying until i see evidence otherwise."
2) If the position of 1 isn't taken by the state, innocent people will be locked up. If the position of 1 is taken, guilty people will go free. We choose one, because in America we believe that freedom is of immeasurable value, so it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to deprive 1 innocent man of his freedom. I agree with you that this is the best position for the government to take.
But, here is where i disagree with you:
3) If the position of 1 is taken by someone that has
A) close ties to the victim and
than immense harm could be done to the victim, assuming the accuser is a victim. If you have no power over the accused, then no damage can erroneously be done to the accused if the accuser is lying. This is why you shouldn't assume innocent until proven guilty if you fulfill A and B. Because there is harm if the accuser is telling the truth and you don't believe them, but there is no harm if the accuser is lying and you believe them. Therefore, no possibility of abuse of power.
If you Don't fulfill A, then you should assume innocence because public opinion is a dangerous thing and leads to vigilante's. If you don't fulfill B, then you should presume innocence due to the risk of abuse of power.
That is as clear as i can explain my position.
I was trying to be helpful.
His wikipedia article is where I formed my information about. To the italicized part I never claimed that. Actually that was a strawman made against my claim thanks for playing though.
*edit also you still didn't cite what I asked for. Linking other articles that have nothing to do with it is not a citation sorry. If anything its more of a oh hey look over there argument.
Sure. ALL crimes have a certain level of false reports (particularly when insurance is involved).
But we don't live in a culture where there's a particular four-letter slur for a person who lends their car to friends. Not many people who say "Yeah, when I was a teenager my car got stolen" suddenly get peppered with questions about how maybe the guy who took it thought it was a gift, or whether they secretly wanted it to get stolen, or whether it was really theft theft because they left the keys in the ignition, it wasn't like somebody broke a window or something.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.