Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kay12]

Basically, most humans are willing to conduct some transgressions if the risk of getting caught is low and the potential reward is high. Lying about rape is not a small thing, but sometimes, the opportunity just presents itself too nicely: one case I read about had a young couple whose relationship ended in angry terms. The woman attempted to capitalize on the the ruins of the relationship by accusing her ex-boyfriend of rape. There was plenty of evidence, of course - during the course of the relationship, various stains and other proof of intercourse had developed. It was ultimately the woman's own carelessness that brought the case down - she SMS'd one of her friends about the case and admitted that the sex was consensual and she was trying to net compensations and revenge on her ex-boyfriend.

Rape is a terrible thing in various ways. Getting raped is often cited as one of the worst things in the world and being labeled as a rapist (even if there's no proof) is one of the biggest social stains one can develop. Both sides are amplified by the fact that rape is hard to prove unless the suspect is caught red-handed - it is both easier for actual rapists to escape on the grounds of the sex being consensual and easier for false victims to impose the rapist stigma on an innocent.

[G-Flex]

Hum, well, rationally speaking "conservative" has some element(s) that the person has to meet to be a conservative, right? Whatever it means, it has to mean something. I thought that meant:

1.) Doesn't like taxes.
2.) Doesn't like public sector (government).
3.) Likes private sector (corporations)

I more or less thought that was pretty basic. No? Aren't those characteristics that conservatives share? I've never seen a conservative who was campaigning for taxes or for "big government."

Again, you're only talking about one definition of conservatives. "Conservative" is a much older term than the kind of person you're describing, and therefore is much broader. Yes, that's generally what people mean in the US, right now, when they say "conservative", but reality is much more complicated than that. A person can be a social conservative but an economic liberal (authoritarians), or a social liberal but an economic conservative (libertarians), not to mention what the word can mean in other countries.

The fact of the matter is that this is a case of a fairly broad term getting applied to a fairly specific group out of convenience. The best general definition for "conservatism" I can think of is the one Wikipedia has: Idealizing the preservation of traditional aspects of society/government. "Small government" and private-business ideals are a sort of offshoot of that in American politics, but aren't part of the broader definition.

Have fun with this, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

one case I read about had a young couple whose relationship ended in angry terms. The woman attempted to capitalize on the the ruins of the relationship by accusing her ex-boyfriend of rape. There was plenty of evidence, of course - during the course of the relationship, various stains and other proof of intercourse had developed. It was ultimately the woman's own carelessness that brought the case down - she SMS'd one of her friends about the case and admitted that the sex was consensual and she was trying to net compensations and revenge on her ex-boyfriend.

Any decent court would throw that out anyway due to reasonable doubt. They were previously in a relationship and there was a breakup, so there's both a very good explanation for that "evidence" existing (consensual sex during the relationship) and an apparent motive to make it up. Proving that two people who dated had sex is by no means significant proof of rape.

This is not to say, of course, that all judges or juries are decent, especially when it comes to very emotionally-charged things like that.

[Kay12]

one case I read about had a young couple whose relationship ended in angry terms. The woman attempted to capitalize on the the ruins of the relationship by accusing her ex-boyfriend of rape. There was plenty of evidence, of course - during the course of the relationship, various stains and other proof of intercourse had developed. It was ultimately the woman's own carelessness that brought the case down - she SMS'd one of her friends about the case and admitted that the sex was consensual and she was trying to net compensations and revenge on her ex-boyfriend.

Any decent court would throw that out anyway due to reasonable doubt. They were previously in a relationship and there was a breakup, so there's both a very good explanation for that "evidence" existing (consensual sex during the relationship) and an apparent motive to make it up. Proving that two people who dated had sex is by no means significant proof of rape.

It's not only a matter of court justice. If the case had been dismissed without the SMS blunder that proved the malicious motives of the fabricator, the social stigma for the defendant would've been far more serious - he still could've done it but it just can't be proved, so the fabricator can still abuse the situation by whining about the unjustness of the acquittal, possibly turning a large network of people against a single undeserving victim.

[G-Flex]

You're right, and let me tell you: People like Nancy Grace sure as hell don't help. The media love to sensationalize stories and declare guilt or innocence (but most often guilt) at the drop of a hat.

[Kay12]

I also find it odd that some people have been so bloody certain about Michael Jackson being guilty of child molestation concerning the latest trial. Even after the trial. "He should've been put to jail, he's clearly a pedophile" and such, and most of them haven't even seen Jackson outside TV. Do these people have faulty sex offender sensors or was the court really severely wrong in something?

[G-Flex]

I agree, especially considering how screwed up the original allegations (back in '93 or so?) were in the first place.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Damn, I missed that. It's not bad, although I'm not sure why it has to be limited to the specific crimes mentioned.

At any rate, KaelGotDwarves didn't seem to be arguing from the perspective of knowing what the bill says, so my point stands in that regard.

I read the bill, do you find anything remotely disagreeable about it? Because I don't, unless you're a republican that just hates democratic legislation and business regulation so much that you're willing to vote against rape victims' rights.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

At a glance, modern "Conservatism" is actually pretty much what Liberalism was in the mid 19th century - low taxes, free trade etcetera. Much as I disagree
with modern conservatism, I think I probably prefer it to old conservatism.

Not sure where I'm going with this. Think of it as a fun fact.

[scriver]

Essentially, the original case was that the an employee signed a contract that stated that if a crime was committed upon her (namely the story in question) by other employees of the company, she would have to settle the matter in private legal arbitration rather than open court, or would have no other choice but to walk away from her job with no case at all.  The bill amended the military's continuing budget resolution such that the United States and its departments could pay no money to an outside company whose employee contracts included such a "mandatory arbitration" clause.

Thank you (G-Flex too). It wouldn't do anything directly against such contracts, then, just "encourage" certain companies to stop using them. Seems a bit poor to me.

edit: forgot a not.

[vagel7]

It is sad how these days the media actually rules the peoples minds. If they say that somebody is guilty then the people will believe it no matter what. Like what happened in the Arbuckle case. He was a young promising actor, but then he was wrongly accused of murder, they didn't even have much evidence. The poor guys career was ruled even after the court ruled him as innocent.

[Kay12]

Damn, I missed that. It's not bad, although I'm not sure why it has to be limited to the specific crimes mentioned.

At any rate, KaelGotDwarves didn't seem to be arguing from the perspective of knowing what the bill says, so my point stands in that regard.

I read the bill, do you find anything remotely disagreeable about it? Because I don't, unless you're a republican that just hates democratic legislation and business regulation so much that you're willing to vote against rape victims' rights.

So... this is probably the first time I've seen someone scold a person for voting a certain way AND simultaneously accuse them of hating democratic legislation. So, what exactly is your stance on democratic legislation? "Perfectly fine but vote the way I want you to"?

[Virex]

Any decent court would throw that out anyway due to reasonable doubt. They were previously in a relationship and there was a breakup, so there's both a very good explanation for that "evidence" existing (consensual sex during the relationship) and an apparent motive to make it up. Proving that two people who dated had sex is by no means significant proof of rape.

Considering the amount of women that get raped while in a 'relation', it'd be rather short-sighted and dangerous to dismiss a serious allegation because the victim was engaged with the rapist. I'd expect a good court to base it's judgment on the likelihood that the woman's confession is real, instead of writing off like a quarter of all rape cases.

[Truean]

Hum, well, rationally speaking "conservative" has some element(s) that the person has to meet to be a conservative, right? Whatever it means, it has to mean something. I thought that meant:

1.) Doesn't like taxes.
2.) Doesn't like public sector (government).
3.) Likes private sector (corporations)

I more or less thought that was pretty basic. No? Aren't those characteristics that conservatives share? I've never seen a conservative who was campaigning for taxes or for "big government."

Again, you're only talking about one definition of conservatives. "Conservative" is a much older term than the kind of person you're describing, and therefore is much broader. Yes, that's generally what people mean in the US, right now, when they say "conservative", but reality is much more complicated than that. A person can be a social conservative but an economic liberal (authoritarians), or a social liberal but an economic conservative (libertarians), not to mention what the word can mean in other countries.

The fact of the matter is that this is a case of a fairly broad term getting applied to a fairly specific group out of convenience. The best general definition for "conservatism" I can think of is the one Wikipedia has: Idealizing the preservation of traditional aspects of society/government. "Small government" and private-business ideals are a sort of offshoot of that in American politics, but aren't part of the broader definition.

Have fun with this, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative

You more or less knew what I meant though...? Technically, "fiscal conservatives," I guess. They seem to be making a lot of noise lately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative#United_States

[Bauglir]

I read the bill, do you find anything remotely disagreeable about it? Because I don't, unless you're a republican that just hates democratic legislation and business regulation so much that you're willing to vote against rape victims' rights.

So... this is probably the first time I've seen someone scold a person for voting a certain way AND simultaneously accuse them of hating democratic legislation. So, what exactly is your stance on democratic legislation? "Perfectly fine but vote the way I want you to"?
[/quote]

I'm not actually sure what you're getting at. The point seems to be that they voted a certain way in this particular situation because of hating democratic legislation in general, and letting party line affect your voting instead of the merit of the bill in question is a serious flaw in policy. I doubt there was any point at all about an obligation to support democratic legislation in a larger context, because that would be awfully hypocritical.

[Kay12]

Any decent court would throw that out anyway due to reasonable doubt. They were previously in a relationship and there was a breakup, so there's both a very good explanation for that "evidence" existing (consensual sex during the relationship) and an apparent motive to make it up. Proving that two people who dated had sex is by no means significant proof of rape.

Considering the amount of women that get raped while in a 'relation', it'd be rather short-sighted and dangerous to dismiss a serious allegation because the victim was engaged with the rapist. I'd expect a good court to base it's judgment on the likelihood that the woman's confession is real, instead of writing off like a quarter of all rape cases.

But the modern court system is based around the assumption of innocence - that the defendant is not guilty until proven otherwise. How would you measure the likelihood of the woman's credibility? How "likely" must the rape have been to sentence someone? And are you aware of the fact that analyzing the victim's (or alleged victim's) credibility for determining whether sex has been consensual has been recently criticized in the DSK trial?

I read the bill, do you find anything remotely disagreeable about it? Because I don't, unless you're a republican that just hates democratic legislation and business regulation so much that you're willing to vote against rape victims' rights.

So... this is probably the first time I've seen someone scold a person for voting a certain way AND simultaneously accuse them of hating democratic legislation. So, what exactly is your stance on democratic legislation? "Perfectly fine but vote the way I want you to"?

I'm not actually sure what you're getting at. The point seems to be that they voted a certain way in this particular situation because of hating democratic legislation in general, and letting party line affect your voting instead of the merit of the bill in question is a serious flaw in policy. I doubt there was any point at all about an obligation to support democratic legislation in a larger context, because that would be awfully hypocritical.
[/quote]

Democracy means that people get to choose the ones leading them. If people like partyline voters, it's not against democracy to have them.