Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10
Around the NBA / Re: Jimmy Butler (Merged Threads)
« Last post by rondofan1255 on Today at 12:15:22 AM »
Minnesota Timberwolves President/Coach Tom Thibodeau met with All-Star forward Jimmy Butler on Monday and tried to convince him to eventually rejoin the team in the preseason, league sources tell ESPN. Butler is sitting out, awaiting the organization to honor his trade request.
Celtics Talk / Re: Reminder
« Last post by trickybilly on Today at 12:13:07 AM »
Yeah - defend the 3 point line like last year. Get Theis and Baynes to bang with Boogie Cousins, and we are in with a chance.
Celtics Talk / Re: Theis: “knee feels great. Fully recovered.”
« Last post by trickybilly on Today at 12:09:55 AM »
Only disappointing thing about Theis was his 3pt shooting. Hoping he lights it up from 3 this year.
Celtics Talk / Re: Its Finally Safe
« Last post by Celtic Fan Forever on Today at 12:07:32 AM »
It’s still far from a sure thing that he stays next season, but yeah it was good to hear.
Celtics Talk / Its Finally Safe
« Last post by rollie mass on Yesterday at 11:50:13 PM »
Couldn't fully commit to Kyrie until media day.Hanging number 11 from rafters like his father did at BU gave symmetry and honesty to Kyries remarks.All the media noise gave life to those rumors because it was a realistic option.
I can now enjoy the season.
But when two separate stories have common links, it gives credibility to both accusations.

If there is no proof of either accusation this is wholly false.

This is not a criminal trial.  Kavanaugh is not being sentenced to jail based on the outcome of this.  He isn't going to be burned at the stake.  His life won't be ruined.  He'll still be a rich, powerful man near the top of our society regardless of the outcome.

The stakes here are different.  This is about a lifetime appointment to the highest court.   Not a criminal conviction.  And there is no strict threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in play here.  The threshold is what each Senator feels is suitability to the position.  And that is a very complex and fuzzy threshold that is different for each Senator and not delineated by a simple line or rule.

It is not a criminal trial, no.  But denying Kavanaugh this appointment based on the accusations is still passing judgment just the same.  There should be no different standard.  Proof must be required.  Anything less is unjust.
So by your standard, none of the Catholic preists did anything wrong and none of the Weinstein accusers were telling the truth and most victims that came out with the #MeToo movement ever had anything done to them.

I think it's great to have proof but in 36 year old accusations one must take the proof given and extrapolate what is the most likely scenario.This isn't a court of law.

Well, I'm not 100% familiar with all of the details of the Weinstein accusations, nor do I know the details of every accusation ever made against any particular priest, so I cannot comment with any certainty there.

But, pretending for a second that there was never any proof provided substantiating the accusations, I wouldn't be saying none of things didn't happen.  I'd be saying I don't know that they did.  And if I don't know for certain that those things happened it is inherently unjust of me to pass judgment on those accused.  Judgment could come in the form of criminal justice, civil penalty, or simply harboring thoughts that the accused did what they were accused of.  The standard for proof must be the same regardless, it's the only just way such matters should be considered.

The idea that one side or the other has to be believed is one that does not stand up to logic and reason.  Sometimes there is just no answer.  It's obviously desirable to find the truth, and that is not a trivial matter, but if it cannot be found, simply relying on what you think is most likely true is not something that is just for anyone involved.

Look, I don't expect you or anyone else to change your mind today.  This wasn't something I always understood, it's something that came about after many long discussions, contemplation, and self reflection.  But all I'd ask that you consider my thoughts.
Other / General Sports / Re: AFL
« Last post by gouki88 on Yesterday at 11:45:22 PM »
Gee, I thought this was going to be a nostalgia thread about the old American Football League. Guess I was wrong.
Sorry to disappoint ;)

The American Football League well predates my interest in the American football code, to be honest
Current Events / Political Discussion / Re: Justice Kennedy retiring
« Last post by keevsnick on Yesterday at 11:45:12 PM »
False claims are thing thing, just not a very common thing. Most studies put the percentage of flase claims soemwhere between 2-9% of all sexual ssault accusations.

I cited a similar statistic above, that found that 6% of allegations were *proven* false.  Another roughly 45% had insufficient evidence to proceed, though.  What percentage of those were false, but couldn't be proven so?

Take Anita Hill.  She was caught in numerous false statements, and at the time of Thomas' confirmation hearing polls showed that over 60% of Americans thought she was lying.  (That number has shifted over time, to the point where the majority of Americans think she was telling the truth now.)

Is hers a false accusation?  I don't think it would meet the category of that; there's no definitive proof that it didn't happen.  It's just that there wasn't enough evidence and/or questions of credibility.

But, just because her allegation wasn't proven to be false doesn't mean that it is in fact accurate.

We arent taking about a small study, or even a few small studies. We are talking reviews of literally thousands of cases involving extensive police investigation. The 2-10 percentage point claim has been consistently reinforced time and time again in these studies. You can parse it however you wnat, the bottom line is that the rate of people lying about sexual assault is extremely low.

And you point out that 45% of cases go unresolved, but there is absolutely no reason to think that the rate of false reporting is substantally higher in unsolved cases than in solved cases. The police in theory investigated those case as well and could find no reason to list them as false reports. An investigation could fail to proceed for a number of reasons including the victim themslves being unwilling to proceed. Or the fact that foor the past thirty plus years people have been extremely quick to completely dismiss the victim because alcohol was involved, or her story wasn't perfect, or the man she was accusing was powerful, ect.

And then theres the fact that not all false allegations are created equal. Most false allegations are made against strangers, or fail to name a perpetrator at all (ex: I was raped by "someone,"), they typically arent hit jobs used to smear a person's character. And reporting of false allegations has so many probably including but not limited too how police themslves want to code a crime. For example if a women reports she blacked out at a party and gets a rape kit but if found to have not been assaulted police may term that "no crime," and such cases have typically led to an increased perception that false reports are a huge problem.

And when you consider the fact that most sexual assaults are never rrported you get to the heart of the issue, for one reaosn or another (shame, fear, trauma) women typically do not wnat to be identified as having been assaulted, and for that reason alone the rate of false reprorting wouldn't be expected to be that high.

Here's a good overview of the issue, if interested.

Other / General Sports / Re: AFL
« Last post by nickagneta on Yesterday at 11:42:31 PM »
Gee, I thought this was going to be a nostalgia thread about the old American Football League. Guess I was wrong.
Okay, quick rant: If you could put up roadblocks to “literally Hitler’s” accomplishments, you would do whatever is necessary, including smearing an innocent man with baseless unsubstantiated allegations. That is the mindset of these people. That’s what is going on here as far as I can tell based on the information. Again, this is the problem with a witch hunt like #metoo movement. You are guilty, forever, regardless of the truth. The fact that MeToo is now being used to tear down men in the political arena should not come as a surprise to nobody.

Modern Feminism is simply a wicked branch of authoritarianism, and if you are a man you better wake up and start speaking up against made up mainstream narratives that try to marginalize due process. “Believe her” yeah okay. That’s inherently sexist. Because she is a woman speaking out against a man she must be believed? Nonsense.... You could be next, especially if you’re going for a high quality position in whatever enterprise you are apart of.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10