No.I don't consider gender a factor in an argument. Do you?
Interesting. So when do you consider gender a factor?
No.I don't consider gender a factor in an argument. Do you?
No.
Interesting. So when do you consider gender a factor?
This thread and the "minor molester" thread really take the cake.
This thread and the "minor molester" thread really take the cake.
And you stumbled on both on the same day. Lucky you
So, why did you bring it up?
Is this what this post was really all about?
Arguing for social justice - is the accused (innocent or guilty) a part of that justice system?
Because I found it unique that such a defender of women would speak to a woman in such a demeaning way.
Gotcha. I might post a thread to explain on the P&R later on. But I see your point; I seldom get offended at being called a nationalist either
I might even participate in that thread, even though I generally try to avoid getting entangled in P&R because it's too tempting to over-moderate.
So what we talkimbout now? That thread about a dude chasing a 15 year old still thrivin
I love that idea but I'll get banned
Of course he is. He's participating in it right now. And if it starts to look like he's not receiving justice, I'll react to that in the same way I'm reacting to this.
But for now, the presumption of innocence goes to the victim - I assume she's not a criminal who is lying about an assault, because that's by far the more likely scenario. And if she's not that, it means he's the rapist.
So that's the assumption. Is it subject to change? Sure.
But to go the other way is to reveal a huge chip on one's shoulder about the relatively remote possibility that the man might somehow be being set up.
It's to take the by far less likely scenario and make that the center of the conversation.
I mean, you might as well throw in the possibility that she's a North Korean spy as long as you're speculating on the fringes of probability.
You have an agenda with this issue, it's clear - you're very worried about men being falsely accused, to the point where you carry around that Duke story in your back pocket and think part of your argument can just be telling people to go look it up.
Like someone is going to say "Oh my god, once upon a time there was this false accusation, so from now on the burden of doubt is going to be on the shoulders of the victim."
In court of course everyone has the benefit of the doubt.
But just in conversation, without the legal system being in any way involved, you can't let people make the obvious and most likely correct assumption, and be angry about it. You have to be the... I guess... Social Injustice Warrior, and make sure that everyone knows that there's a statistically small chance that she's lying about something horrifying having happened to her.
So walk me through it... at what point does one become guilty of a crime (in your mind, not in the court of law)... is it the moment that one is accused, arrested, convicted in court?
Why did you post the article as a thread here if you want to control the responses.
Take that shit to P&R and name the thread Due Process or "sneaky sneaky incendiary tricksy"
He is experiencing due process. Nothing that goes on in this thread had anything to do with due process.
So wait, no one can have an opinion before the judge rules? Lol let's erase that first amendment right quick in favor of the 5th.
Amen! Right now EVERYONE on this thread has done the exact same thing, which is comment on the original post. I am wondering if the OP either tried to set this up to be clever/witty and it backfired or if he just honestly does not grasp the fact that he invited this forum to express opinions to his post and its just flustering him...?
I can assure you that the OP didn't have any evil set up plans.
Or is only one side allowed to have opinions?