Presumably, that is being asked of EF--as he is the one who champion the rights of the accused of others?
Ahhh, but apparently your incomprehension (and fondness for fabrication) is every bit as profound as his.
Title IX under review
- Thread starter ElectricFetus
- Start date
So you didn't notice I mention fixing the police, making sure rapist are punish with something a little more then expulsion and that women outside of college are more likely to be raped?
Again all I'm asking for is that rape be handled by police, not by the education system, jeez. If the problem is the police then fix the police, don't try to create a separate system of justice of the the education department, for the education department lacks the power to actually deal with rapist, it can't imprison them, castrate them, put them on sex offender registry, or protect the women not going to college from them!
The thing is, either way, the university has to deal with the matter--that is, whether a victim goes to the police or not. You cannot compel a person to go to the police, and considering the scope of the problems with the police, there are plenty of valid reasons for a person to not go to the police. So, until these problems are "fixed"? Is a university to do nothing at all, either way?
What the school should DO is present said evidence to the police so the guy can tried in a court of law and be put in prison! Do you think expelling a drug peddler is going to protect society?
No drugs (at parties... does the school allow illegal drugs at other times?) is a state and federal rule aka "law", the school can't accurately and viably punish for a CRIME!
Good luck getting a lawyer that think they can make money off that, good luck winning. When schools have to pay out or lose that is a sign there is a serious problem.
NO they should give such evidence to the police! Do you also think people the eat babies and fuck child and burn animals should be punished with mere expulsion from a college?
I'm not an institution for which he is paying me to enter my goverment accredited business.
I don't disagree, that is your fallacy, I ask HOW you want to prevent it, you tell me how you want to prevent it first, Yes in principle preventing rape to begin with is the best, but how?
Next century someone ask the machine overlords "Don't you agree we should prevent all crime, not simply prosecute it after the fact" the machines respond "Yes, you are correct, we will now exterminate all humans, thus preventing all future crime". Platitudes sound nice, but it is solutions that matter.
And I said I did not disagree with any of that. What the problem here?
And I said that is not the problem being argued here. Lets get back the problem: schools should not be persecuting people for federal crimes.
Oh name me these valid reasons.
How about just reading the link, as a for instance?
And that you actually have to ask this... mind-blowing.
OK now, before I lose patience with you again, I'll throw this out:
Two groups of victims here, spot the difference:
1. babies, children, animals.
2. adult person, who is not presently sectioned or deemed incapable of representing themselves.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
If you posted that rubbish with the intent of being friendly and fostering communications,
I've gotta let you know
that
You are way the hell off the mark.
(better luck next time)
Damn. I was so hopeful--where did I go wrong?
And this shouldn't have to be said, but apparently, it does:
We can read your posts. Both within and outside of this thread.
Consequently, we can also suss out the likelihood for fruitful discussion, or, conversely, the probability that what we will get is (seemingly) willful obfuscation and preposterous distortions. From this, we can draw conclusions and make informed decisions about how to proceed henceforth.
Some, while not optimistic, nevertheless, proceed as though honesty were the norm. Presumably, this is for the benefit of the disinterested--and possibly non-participatory, i.e., lurkers--readers. Others do not.
Sure, they should do that too.
No, but it will protect the people in the school. And the responsibility of school administrators is to protect the people in the school.
And people are successfully sued for Internet slander all the time - which means that's a serious problem too, by your standards.
Nope. Do you think "people the eat babies and fuck child and burn animals" should be allowed to remain at school, if the criminal case against them fails? Would you let one of those people stay at your house if the case against them failed?
Agreed, and they do not. They can (and should) deal with students who break the school's rules, including rules related to Title IX. That might range from getting a lecture to suspension or even expulsion.
@ EF
Complementary to post #66, and supplementary to post #69:
I am not going to bother giving you a single reason--why? Because I am absolutely confident that should I go through your posting history I would find that--probably within the past six months even--at least a half dozen or so posters have already named/cited/linked countless reasons. If I were to go back a couple of years, I would find that at least a dozen posters have provided countless reasons. You either ignore or dismiss them.
But really, that is precisely what people mean by "privilege": your inability to acknowledge or accept that there are an abundance of damn good reasons why a person might be reluctant to go to the police.
...
OK, I'll give one reason: they might shoot you dead. <<<
I've called the cops one time in my life, and as a consequence I--literally--almost died. And I'm a white male, with a graduate degree, who is built like John Carradine.
Complementary to post #66, and supplementary to post #69:
I am not going to bother giving you a single reason--why? Because I am absolutely confident that should I go through your posting history I would find that--probably within the past six months even--at least a half dozen or so posters have already named/cited/linked countless reasons. If I were to go back a couple of years, I would find that at least a dozen posters have provided countless reasons. You either ignore or dismiss them.
But really, that is precisely what people mean by "privilege": your inability to acknowledge or accept that there are an abundance of damn good reasons why a person might be reluctant to go to the police.
...
OK, I'll give one reason: they might shoot you dead. <<<
I've called the cops one time in my life, and as a consequence I--literally--almost died. And I'm a white male, with a graduate degree, who is built like John Carradine.
Brief notes:
(1) For some reason, advocates name cases as if these become somehow emblematic; it is nothing more than a pissing contest, though, if we stand around and pile up names, except there isn't really any statistical comparison by which it is helpful to go invoking named cases. When we pile them up, you might have a stack, but it will get lost in the spilling flood of wrongly-handled rape reports further victimizing victims. Megan Rondini and Kendall Anderson, for instance. Off the top of my head, there's two. The unnamed cases are inestimable. Here is an interesting proposition: If the good news is that the mold growing on the rape kits rediscovered a decade later won't necessarily disrupt the DNA testing, then I find myself wondering what other crimes see evidence in felony cases warehoused and forgotten like this. Or, like when Houston finished testing over 6,600 previously-forgotten rape kits, representing over thirty years worth of doing pretty much nothing about rape reports. Meanwhile, let us just point out, for instance, the presence of liberals in this discussion because they, too, are interested in pursuing justice for the falsely accused. Gary Dotson's case is a familiar refrain in asking #WhatAboutTheMen; over on our side of the aisle, where there is less identity assertion in the politicking, we also think of names like Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, whose coerced "confessions" never really made any sense, and who spent over three decades on death row for a rape and murder they did not commit.
(2) There is always an interesting question, a crossroads of sorts, that arises when people throw down blatant generalizations like, "'innocent until proven guilty', or convicted on a whim of the societal pendulum?" Because here's the thing: Innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful notion that we Americans are supposed to aspire to, but every day of the Republic we have chosen otherwise. It is terrible, stupid, and wrong, but it's also how we've done it the whole time. And there are always people who step up within various interest blocs and throw down as if their issue is somehow unique. Innocent until proven guilty would probably be a wonderful thing for the rape survivor who is called a criminal suspect merely for reporting her rape. So the question of innocent until proven guilty is a viable, even hot question in American society, but men who fear being accused of rape need to take a number and get in line; it isn't a kind juxtaposition. The dead, unarmed black man shot in the back could have used "innocent until proven guilty". The dead black man shot to death—while following police instructions—according to the self-defense standard of saying it's scary to be a police officer, the contradictory instructions he managed to follow, anyway, the fact that he an officer physically attacked him while he was doing so, the fact that "reaching" for a gun might have been simply flailing as he fell, the fact that the gun did not appear in scene photos it should have and thus those pictures needed to be retaken, and the fact that the gun the suspect was alleged to be carrying was last known to be in the possession of an actual corrupt, disgraced police officer, notwithstanding, probably could have used some innocence until proven guilty. For all the issues we might raise some cynical flag about innocence and proof of guilt, there is a reason this particular #WhatAboutTheMen advocacy looks so strange and wrong to so many people. On this occasion, women in general get to say, "That's our line." It's in the way the numbers work out; it's in the history that leads us to these times and circumstances. We need not suggest that innocence and proof of guilt is somehow irrelevant to or exclusive of accused sex offenders; rather, these need to take a number and get in line with everybody else.
(2) There is always an interesting question, a crossroads of sorts, that arises when people throw down blatant generalizations like, "'innocent until proven guilty', or convicted on a whim of the societal pendulum?" Because here's the thing: Innocent until proven guilty is a wonderful notion that we Americans are supposed to aspire to, but every day of the Republic we have chosen otherwise. It is terrible, stupid, and wrong, but it's also how we've done it the whole time. And there are always people who step up within various interest blocs and throw down as if their issue is somehow unique. Innocent until proven guilty would probably be a wonderful thing for the rape survivor who is called a criminal suspect merely for reporting her rape. So the question of innocent until proven guilty is a viable, even hot question in American society, but men who fear being accused of rape need to take a number and get in line; it isn't a kind juxtaposition. The dead, unarmed black man shot in the back could have used "innocent until proven guilty". The dead black man shot to death—while following police instructions—according to the self-defense standard of saying it's scary to be a police officer, the contradictory instructions he managed to follow, anyway, the fact that he an officer physically attacked him while he was doing so, the fact that "reaching" for a gun might have been simply flailing as he fell, the fact that the gun did not appear in scene photos it should have and thus those pictures needed to be retaken, and the fact that the gun the suspect was alleged to be carrying was last known to be in the possession of an actual corrupt, disgraced police officer, notwithstanding, probably could have used some innocence until proven guilty. For all the issues we might raise some cynical flag about innocence and proof of guilt, there is a reason this particular #WhatAboutTheMen advocacy looks so strange and wrong to so many people. On this occasion, women in general get to say, "That's our line." It's in the way the numbers work out; it's in the history that leads us to these times and circumstances. We need not suggest that innocence and proof of guilt is somehow irrelevant to or exclusive of accused sex offenders; rather, these need to take a number and get in line with everybody else.
Meanwhile, equal protection remains a difficult question, but in a society where a woman can face expulsion under the honor code↗ for reporting a rape, part of the point is to stop going out of our way to be unequal. Obama suggested they should knock it off; now DeVos wants them to knock off knocking it off.
Yes if a reason is not legitimate yes I will ignore and/or dismiss it. I have yet to see a reason for creating a system outside the law for the prosecution of rapists.
Sure there are tons of reasons to be reluctant to go to the police, but there is no reason to create a completely different system, outside the law, devoid of due process rights. If the police are being sexist/racist/biased then the problem is the police and the solution is to fix the police via suing the police.
And the solution to that is to create a completely different system of justice, that punishes rapist with mere expulsion from campuses? You know how many people get shot trying to report murder to police? Perhaps we should create a totally different system of justice for that too, force murderers to park outside the city, that will teach them!
And I called the cops multiple times in my life to report gun shots outside my apartment, traffic accidents, road rage, friends suffering from epileptic episode... and I'm a sephardi jew that can pass for arab.
How about a society where a man can be harassed and hounded for a crime he did not commit?
http://time.com/4858979/columbia-university-paul-nungesser-mattress-girl-emma-sulkowicz/
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
ain't no easy answers, nor a one rule for all
See, the part where you skip out on explaining what you mean and just ask people to take it one more time around is absolutely stupid.
And it's also useless.
I'll just point you back to the rest of my prior post↑, with a reminder to take a number and get in line with everybody else.
And if there's something about that you disagree with, maybe you could have addressed it the first time through.
So your argument is that if someone else is wronged who gives a shit about anyone being wronged? This idea that we need for form A line in dealing with problems is a gross fallacy: can't we not deal with multiple problems at once? Pretty sure I said that before many posts ago.
Why should we require one group be oppressed at the privilege of another? Can't we not have equality? A system of law and justice that provides rights to both the accused and accuser, instead of witch trials and kangaroo courts? In the real world, platitudes don't cut it, use of TitleIX to force colleges to prosecute for sexual assault cases is starting to cost colleges a lot of money as men are now using TitleIX proclaiming they are oppressed by a system biased against them, and are winning! There are a lot of judges and the lineS to them are not that long.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...27c98455440_story.html?utm_term=.0ed0f981b96e
In the long run, well actually today, the infantilizing of women and the demonizing of men has cost us liberals votes, dearly, thank you for helping to elected a pig boar as president.
Consider listening to this:
This is a social scientist, she not stupid or crazy, and yet she voted for trump... how are we losing people like this? Here my theory, because people like you demand a single line for which the most oppressed people get first serve for crying about (and doing nothing of actual use) has cost us votes in almost every demographic. My solution is we need to focus on the issues that help the most people at once, that have broad popularity, that unifies the most people, not put people in a fucking line!
Last edited:
#malesupremacy | #WhatTheyVotedFor
Click for sacrifice unto terrible gods.
#StartMakingSense.
Straw men invented as worshipers to your holy fantasy do not proper theses make. You couldn't explain your "theory" even if you had help, because at some point it needs to start dealing with reality.
It's an interesting idea, but you've already called for sacrificing a majority of the people according to that "solution".
A solution, while it won't actually solve the political and human problems wracking the Democrats and these United States, would be that you need to stop with your pretty little liar routine. And the thing is that when you talk about helping the most people, you're deliberately excluding an actual majority↗.
When the erasure of women is key to understanding your statistical assessment, you're doing it wrong. There is a reason I declared↗ it one of the great paragraphs of your misogyny, and you still appear to be on that strange trip.
You're on a role with these highly reputable sources, aren'tcha EF? Oh, right - just doing oppo research...
First Judgy Bitch:
- Judgy Bitch(link): aka Janet Bloomfield, alleged social media specialist for AVFM who was thrown off Twitter for harassing other users. Obnoxious, pretentious, hypocritical female MRA.
- Hard Bastard(link): Neoreactionary, anti-feminist YouTube crank who, in the same vein as Devon Tracey, makes long critiques about his ideological opponents. Frequently refers to mainstream media outlets as "propaganda" and "fake news" (especially The Young Turks, because of course they are). Supported (and voted for) Trump in the 2016 election, and is an endorser of Pizzagate.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites
The following is a list of webshites: really bad sources of information. Be forewarned, prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws, broken keyboards and monitors.
Exemplary material should be submitted to What is going on in the clogosphere? or to Fundies Say The Darndest Things.
Remember to keep Poe's Law in mind.
Furthermore, if you find that you consume and/or enjoy any of the sources listed below, don't feel too bad. It is good to listen to and consider opinions contrary to your own. Such is the burden of ensuring you don't live in an Echo chamber.
The following is a list of webshites: really bad sources of information. Be forewarned, prolonged exposure may result in the following side effects: nausea, depression, high blood pressure, loss of IQ, periodic outbursts of hysterical guffaws, broken keyboards and monitors.
Exemplary material should be submitted to What is going on in the clogosphere? or to Fundies Say The Darndest Things.
Remember to keep Poe's Law in mind.
Furthermore, if you find that you consume and/or enjoy any of the sources listed below, don't feel too bad. It is good to listen to and consider opinions contrary to your own. Such is the burden of ensuring you don't live in an Echo chamber.
Knock yourself out EF - should provide hours and hours of reading for you. (I'm here to help)
Well then rephrase what you said because that is my understanding of what you said.
So you call my interpretation of your argument a strawman and reply with nothing but a insult. If it is a strawman explain how so?
Oh and what people would I be sacrificing?
How is demanding free healthcare, free education, taxing the rich, infrastructure, minimum wage, etc, excluding the majority. Everything I want will help the MAJORITY of people.
So women don't need healthcare, education, infrastructure, increase wages? You keep linking to past post put do not quote specifically what your talking about, which makes your links useless. Please explain to me how providing women with college tribunals to accuse and expelled male students helps them? First of all college going women are not all women, it does not put rapist in jail, it does nothing for non-college women, it protects no one and strips people of due process rights. Meanwhile the right gain votes by your blatant hate.
You know why the republicans are quiet on gay marriage? Because they know it makes them look like assholes, it cost them votes, they ran the numbers and decided it is best to pretend that issue is dead to them.
You know why the left keeps infantializing women and demonizing men, particularly white strategist cis males? Because we have people like you that lack the sense and strategium to win politically.