ashkan
Banned
I get that. But why cant you understand that you can also be falsely accused of something while actually being innocent?
Ghomeshigate
- Thread starter shanekingsley
- Start date
I get that. But why cant you understand that you can also be falsely accused of something while actually being innocent?
Of course you can. Should that possibility mean that nobody should ever be charged in sex assault accusations?
If you say no, and seeing as "you get" that being acquitted is not necessarily (and one can argue not even often) the same as proof of factual innocence, then what are you arguing about?
ashkan
Banned
Read up Griff2. I clearly said you can be charged and there should be an investigation. But if the investigation turns up with no reason to convict you, then it is wrong for people to assume you guilty even with no evidence.
And what im arguing is that some were using accusations as final verdict here. Saying he was accused many times therefore he must be guilty.
So investigate but judge based on facts not accusations alone.
It's all over the map, so it's hard to tell. Possible man crush? AHDD? Could be a number of underlying issues at hand.
Last edited:
His wrongful dismissal lawsuit lasted about as long as a fart in a cyclone.
If the verdict is guilty, then it is probably wrong for people to assume or insist that the convicted party is really innocent without compelling evidence to show such. After all, a guilty verdict should ideally happen only if a case is proven beyond reasonable doubt. It occasionally happens though, and the triple-M (Morin, Milgaard, Marshal) cases are good examples of such and why we should never ever bring back capital punishment in this country.
Things do not necessarily follow the same path if the verdict is not guilty. Not guilty is not the same as proving innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It just means only that the evidence did not meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold needed for the justice system to convict and impose formal judicial punishment on behalf of society.
People will still decide for themselves whether Ghomeshi is guilty or not, just as they did when OJ got off because the "glove did not fit". Some may give him the benefit of the doubt, some won't, and others will be wary. But if found not guilty Ghomeshi won't be in jail and he won't be branded with a formal criminal record, and everyone will pick up and carry on with life from that point.
I was thinking along the lines of "birds of a feather" hence the passionate defense.
Assault is assault? What are you talking about, it was clearly consensual, they liked it. It would have been one thing had they left it alone, but they went back for more. They didn't get what they wanted, so then they cry bloody murder, but weren't crying when they went back now did they.
IF anything these women should be tried and convicted for lieing under oath, and sued for ruining the guys life.
Consent ends when one party says stop (or is no longer in a position to do so, eg: semiconscious or unconscious from choking). The term "safe word" is long established in the BDSM community.
Last edited:
-D-
Banned
This stuff is mind boggling at times. Where are people's personal responsibility?
If you are a college age female, you go to a party with majority college age guys, lost of drinking.
You drink beyond...as do the guys...how do you think this is likely going to end for YOU.
If I had a daughter, you damn right I would drill it into her head for things to watch for and how to get out of it.
Sometimes you unknowingly walk into a situation, at least have some basic sense to turn around.
Oh look, you and your buddy just left the bar, he is drunk as hell but says he is good to drive, you get into the car with him...he hits a tree, you end up paralyzed...who's fault is that?
This is like a Jewish person going to a Nazi rally in the middle of the woods at night.
How is this likely going to turn out for YOU and if something happens, who suffers...YOU...so why put yourself in that situation?
How do we know there was NOT a safe word but they did not use it?
These women have been caught lying, case closed. If you feel violated, call 911.
Personal Responsibility.
So are you saying it wasn't consensual? Kind of hard to convince people that it was not consensual when you came back to this supposed abuser and talk to him like nothing happened before makes your story sound a little weak don't you think?
These women were flat out used and wanted him to pay for it because they didn't get what they wanted from him.
-D-
Banned
Perhaps you should learn to present information with clarity.
Maybe you and -D- can get a 2 for 1 on comprehension lessons. Read what I wrote again. Slowly and out loud if you need to. Nowhere did I refer to the Ghomshi case directly. Consent is fluid and dynamic. It doesn't mean "now that I have your consent it's no holes barred". It can be revoked at any time, and is null and void if a person is incapable of doing so (eg: choked into a state of semi consciousness or unconsciousness).
-D-
Banned
About comprehension...and the name of this thread title is????
Back in the mid-80s, things went rather crazy at the university I was attending at the time. It started with a case of a female student drunk almost to the point of unconsciousness being taken advantage of in the campus dorms.
The university and student union rolled out an awareness campaign. Men and women at my university were being told that No Means No and that men were obligated to respect a woman's choice to consent or not to whatever the guy had in mind. They were also being told that a drunken woman could not give consent. That is certainly fair enough and is simply courtesy, never mind a legal obligation.
After a few weeks of this, things started to get a bit ridiculous as various formal and ad hoc campus student groups started to throw in their two cents on the issue. Men were being told that any sexual contact was forbidden unless you had explicit and detailed consent beforehand. The gist was that in the midst of kissing/hugging/canoodling/whatever, if it appeared that things would develop into a sexual act the guy was effectively being told that he had to stop, clarify where he thought things were going, and then obtain that explicit consent before going further.
The predictable result of that was the informal distribution of written consent forms on campus outlining the various kinds of sexual activity that the woman was consenting to, along with places for initials (to each consented act), date, time, and signature.
Things got much worse after that. The No Means No, and get consent before you act campaign morphed into something entirely different. Some women's groups on campus started promoting the opinion that consent the night of could be considered invalid if the woman had even just one alcoholic drink, or if she was emotionally vulnerable due to being on relationship rebound, parental breakdown, having failed an exam or other form of course load stress, feeling ill, or otherwise vulnerable. Of course that meant that about half the female population on campus was potentially "off-limits" at any given time.
That was kind of bad but it got worse when the theory evolved that if on the morning after you woke up and regretted anything you may have done the previous night for any reason at all, that you should consider yourself to have been sexually violated regardless of whether you provided fully-informed and conscious consent.
Needless to say, for almost two years the campus dating scene was incredibly chilled as the student and administrative bodies tried to navigate the new landscape. The sad thing was that the actual policies and education campaign promoted by the university and the student union throughout this time were quite reasonable. The students were just unable to isolate them from all the noise generated by some of the more radical (no other way to put it) women's and feminist groups on campus.
The university and student union rolled out an awareness campaign. Men and women at my university were being told that No Means No and that men were obligated to respect a woman's choice to consent or not to whatever the guy had in mind. They were also being told that a drunken woman could not give consent. That is certainly fair enough and is simply courtesy, never mind a legal obligation.
After a few weeks of this, things started to get a bit ridiculous as various formal and ad hoc campus student groups started to throw in their two cents on the issue. Men were being told that any sexual contact was forbidden unless you had explicit and detailed consent beforehand. The gist was that in the midst of kissing/hugging/canoodling/whatever, if it appeared that things would develop into a sexual act the guy was effectively being told that he had to stop, clarify where he thought things were going, and then obtain that explicit consent before going further.
The predictable result of that was the informal distribution of written consent forms on campus outlining the various kinds of sexual activity that the woman was consenting to, along with places for initials (to each consented act), date, time, and signature.
Things got much worse after that. The No Means No, and get consent before you act campaign morphed into something entirely different. Some women's groups on campus started promoting the opinion that consent the night of could be considered invalid if the woman had even just one alcoholic drink, or if she was emotionally vulnerable due to being on relationship rebound, parental breakdown, having failed an exam or other form of course load stress, feeling ill, or otherwise vulnerable. Of course that meant that about half the female population on campus was potentially "off-limits" at any given time.
That was kind of bad but it got worse when the theory evolved that if on the morning after you woke up and regretted anything you may have done the previous night for any reason at all, that you should consider yourself to have been sexually violated regardless of whether you provided fully-informed and conscious consent.
Needless to say, for almost two years the campus dating scene was incredibly chilled as the student and administrative bodies tried to navigate the new landscape. The sad thing was that the actual policies and education campaign promoted by the university and the student union throughout this time were quite reasonable. The students were just unable to isolate them from all the noise generated by some of the more radical (no other way to put it) women's and feminist groups on campus.
