Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
older

Franklin Graham: Attempted rape not a crime. Kavanaugh "respected" his victim by not finishing.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

Well, Clinton was impeached (granted: acquitted, but still... he's hardly held up by any serious person as a paragon of ethical behaviour), and Weiner resigned, so I'm afraid you're full of shit.

I've no interest nor do I see what the resident troll states, but stating that the past actions of political parties or the actions of other individuals are somehow relevant to decisions being made about the suitability of certain individuals today is utterly ludicrous. But generally, tit for tat thinking is popular with partisan people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Burnedout said:

 

Back then, the Democrats were dismissive about it. So it does apply.  There was proof of their shit.  Today, there is no proof, just phony accusations of Kavanaugh. 

 

I wouldn't call the accusations phony, but they are not supported by evidence and that's the problem. Times have definitely changed.The Dems, and even NOW, rallied around Bill Clinton and turned on his accusers. They not only turned on them they did their best to destroy them. 

 

It was about politics then and it's all about politics now. I think the professor is being used. Once this is over, and she has served her purpose, I think it's very likely she will be discarded by her benefactors never to be heard from again. 

 

Its called politics as usual and it's a very, very, dirty game. People are routinely used and then discarded after having served their purpose. And both the left and right do this on a regular basis..

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left's tactics have proven to be superior to the right's. The left's ability to organize, intimidate, and control the media has proven to be way beyond the right's rather pathetic attempts to do the same thing. When it comes to intimodation the left are pros and the right are clearly amateurs. 

 

These hearing are a good example of the left's superior tactics and their power. The Dems lack the votes to stop this nomination but they have managed to outfox the Republicans and take control of the proceedings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The next elections are close. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Came a cross an interesting article that looks at some of the issues on both sides. Fairly balanced I thought.

 

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12133960

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:23 AM, TruthSeeker0 said:

when the onus is put on the victim to prove that the crime occurred, not the person blamed for the crime.

Absolutely, the Western world runs "innocent until proven guilty", what you are suggesting is "guilty until proven innocent" which is a horrific way to live.  False claims do happen and we shouldn't be destroying anyone's life without good reason.  This does not mean justice cannot be done, but if you cannot prove a crime occurred then unfortunately we have nothing to act on.  Sexual assault is a terrible thing, but raising it 30 years later guarantees there is no dna evidence, no eyewitnesses, no videos or photos and basically no way to tell the truth of the situation.  Our memory is terrible at the best of times, add a alcohol soaked party from decades ago and you'd be hard pressed to believe anyone has a clear idea of what happened.  I do believe she is telling the truth as she remembers it, but in a court of law that is simply not enough to convict someone of a crime.

 

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:23 AM, TruthSeeker0 said:

That Trump himself was able to silence a woman by paying her off before he became President? Nobody sees an issue with this? With the fact that women can be silenced with money?

Isn't that what reparations are?  The victim receives money to improve their life, while the abuser is punished.  If reparations were not paid, then the abuser may end up in prison (depending on the crime committed) but the victim would be no better off.  The power is with the victim, they have the choice; accept the money and live a life of luxury, or reject that and take it through a court and have them punished that way.  Either way you get a degree of vengeance.

 

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 9:23 AM, TruthSeeker0 said:

 And what you're seeing today are the remnants of that attitude, towards women. Hence, domestic violence, rape, harassment etc. "If you don't give to me what I want, I have the right to bully or abuse you. Hell, I have the right to harass you even if I don't know you, in a public space, if you're a stranger on the street, walking by."

...

 Is it small wonder that a great portion of men walk around as if they have a right to grope, molest and rape us, when you put this history into perspective?

I've seen this line by feminists before and I don't see the connection.  Yes the world was a bad place in the past, but for everyone alive today that was not the case.  Right now women have all the rights that men have, and full protection under law.  If the strange statement you make about public harassment occurred then the police would be involved and fully on the victims side.  No one in the Western world has the right to "bully or abuse" anyone, the majority of guys do not think they "have the right to grope, molest and rape", not only is that socially unacceptable but it is clearly illegal.

When it comes to rape, laws have existed as far back as recorded history.  Roman and Greek empires had anti-rape laws of various kinds, and the punishments were often brutal.  The only time rape was considered acceptable was in war or against slaves (although even that could be charged as damaging the owners property).  Yes women didn't have all of the rights that men did, but that doesn't mean they had no rights at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, the Democrats have a better story and have a major movement to piggyback on.  Just like Gay Marriage, it gets to back the victims and take on the [Christian] establishment.  On the other hand, Kavanaugh is kind of unlikable and rich.  And Republican.  Boo hiss.  That this is happening is kind of scary, but not much more so than it was before #metoo blew up.  I still think this is mostly in response to the SCOTUS seat that the Republicans stole in Obama's last year of office, and everything else is kind of incidental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 If the strange statement you make about public harassment occurred then the police would be involved and fully on the victims side.  No one in the Western world has the right to "bully or abuse" anyone, the majority of guys do not think they "have the right to grope, molest and rape", not only is that socially unacceptable but it is clearly illegal.

When it comes to rape, laws have existed as far back as recorded history.  Roman and Greek empires had anti-rape laws of various kinds, and the punishments were often brutal.  The only time rape was considered acceptable was in war or against slaves (although even that could be charged as damaging the owners property).  Yes women didn't have all of the rights that men did, but that doesn't mean they had no rights at all.

You are so out of touch with how the world is for women today on the public streets and in public areas, let alone private ones, that it's rather hilarious. Also, stop making claims like "majority" - you have no evidence.

Rape laws and the effectiveness of rape laws are two very different things.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 Yes women didn't have all of the rights that men did, but that doesn't mean they had no rights at all.

What's your point here? That because we had SOME rights, things were okay? Sheesh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

You are so out of touch with how the world is for women today on the public streets and in public areas, let alone private ones, that it's rather hilarious. Also, stop making claims like "majority" - you have no evidence.

Rape laws and the effectiveness of rape laws are two very different things.

I have no evidence that the majority of guys don't believe that it is wrong to molest and rape?  Are you really trying to say the opposite is true?  And you are going to complain about a statement saying "majority" when you yourself said "a great portion of men" for which you also provide no evidence for.  I think the term you were looking for is "a tiny fraction" but that just doesn't sound as pessimistic now does it?

 

As for rape laws, they clearly outline that any such attacks are illegal and severely punished.  Yes it can be hard to prove depending on the circumstances, but that applies to all crimes.  We have no way to prove many things, but that doesn't mean we should remove due process or peoples rights to a fair trial.

 

8 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:
21 hours ago, Wertbag said:

 Yes women didn't have all of the rights that men did, but that doesn't mean they had no rights at all.

What's your point here? That because we had SOME rights, things were okay? Sheesh

My point is that you jump between rights in an attempt to some how link them all.  Bad laws existed in the past, but somehow you jump that to the cause of the worlds ills today.  You mention Canada didn't consider women people until 1929, but that's not completely true.  Women already could own land, vote in some ways, had full protection under the law and the first woman was voted into parliament in 1921.  The 1929 court case added further rights, mainly the ability to sit on the senate.  The way you word it makes it sound like women were nothing at all, then overnight gained full equality, where in fact it was a long slow process involving many separate corrections and improvements.

You'll get no argument that women were treated terribly in the past, but I don't believe you can show causation pointing back at events from centuries ago as the link to todays issues.  Eastern culture, sure.  Religious teachings, absolutely.  But not from historic laws or ancient outdated cultural ideas.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Wertbag said:

 

My point is that you jump between rights in an attempt to some how link them all.  Bad laws existed in the past, but somehow you jump that to the cause of the worlds ills today.  You mention Canada didn't consider women people until 1929, but that's not completely true.  Women already could own land, vote in some ways, had full protection under the law and the first woman was voted into parliament in 1921.  The 1929 court case added further rights, mainly the ability to sit on the senate.  The way you word it makes it sound like women were nothing at all, then overnight gained full equality, where in fact it was a long slow process involving many separate corrections and improvements.

You'll get no argument that women were treated terribly in the past, but I don't believe you can show causation pointing back at events from centuries ago as the link to todays issues.  Eastern culture, sure.  Religious teachings, absolutely.  But not from historic laws or ancient outdated cultural ideas.

The US is only 50 years removed from granting the right to vote for black people. You want to argue that that fact isn't relevant to today's world? My suggestion: you'd understand more if you went and studied the history of ideas, and history itself, because arguing that the past has no influence on the present is just plain stupid. I'll point out your own words: "it was a long slow process involving many separate corrections and improvements." Yes, that is exactly my point, we live on a continuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've just been thinking about the comments about this being a Democrat revenge party for the 2016 election.

 

However, if there is any revenge, I think its more about the Republicans blocking Obama's last attempt at filling a Supreme Court position.

 

This brings me to another question: Is politics any more than a game of tit for tat? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

This brings me to another question: Is politics any more than a game of tit for tat? 

It depends. On the kind of political system they have, for one thing. In a two party system in the US, that's what it is. It's a bit less worse in Canada I think because it's multiparty, but there's still a lot of the same thinking going on. They should all be forced into a system of proportional representation with a minimum of three major parties where they have to form a coalition government and learn how to behave like adults should behave. Good luck getting there, because nobody will go for changing the system once they gain power. Trudeau is a good example of that, campaigning on that promise and backing away from it as soon as he gained power because "its not in the interests of Canadians." Liar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 For all the men out there who echo the words, "This is the United States (or any other western country), there's no possible way this is true." Your daughters, mothers, wives, sisters, aunts, girlfriends etc. would appreciate it if you considered things seriously. No, this isn't only about rape, but about the profit to be made from women's (and children's) bodies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler killed about twice as many people as Stalin so isn't it about time we let Stalin off the hook?

 

Shouldn't sound crazy to today's Trumpublicans. Rather, it's a valid argument that vindicates Stalin.

 

But the problem with Kavanaugh is not really whether he was a drunken, privileged preppy who forced himself on girls in high school and college. The problem is he told demonstrable lies at the hearing and demonstrated a temperament ill suited to a Supreme Court judge, or any judge. He also declared his political agenda and promised payback from the bench for the Hillary conspiracy plot against him. Let's just stipulate the sex crime charges negated - he clearly seems unfit for other reasons. There are hundreds of conservative judges who are of even temperament, good judgment, are honest and don't carry the cloud of the rather credible charges against Kavanaugh. Why MUST it be Kavanaugh? He believes in an imperial presidency (at least for one of his own party) and presidential immunity for crimes committed. A Supreme Court Justice cannot be such a blatant political operative with a stated agenda. Seriously guys, find a judge who is against abortion and all the other conservative points or stop denying that this pick is solely to protect the president from answering for his crimes. A clean conservative would sail right through, and I trust that there are some clean conservatives still around.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 2:23 PM, TruthSeeker0 said:

The US is only 50 years removed from granting the right to vote for black people. You want to argue that that fact isn't relevant to today's world? My suggestion: you'd understand more if you went and studied the history of ideas, and history itself, because arguing that the past has no influence on the present is just plain stupid. I'll point out your own words: "it was a long slow process involving many separate corrections and improvements." Yes, that is exactly my point, we live on a continuum.

Can I see if we can get this back on the original subject as that is where I think our main disagreement lays and I'm interested to see where that questioning leads.

In reply to your claims that "a great portion of men walk around as if they have a right to grope, molest and rape us" I expressed disbelief in this being anything but a tiny fraction of guys.  Can you please let me know how you came to the conclusion that large numbers of guys in the West believe rape is okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

Can I see if we can get this back on the original subject as that is where I think our main disagreement lays and I'm interested to see where that questioning leads.

In reply to your claims that "a great portion of men walk around as if they have a right to grope, molest and rape us" I expressed disbelief in this being anything but a tiny fraction of guys.  Can you please let me know how you came to the conclusion that large numbers of guys in the West believe rape is okay?

The point was taken, which is why I didn't return to it. You claim this, I claim that, neither one of us has stats etc, so let's leave it. Interesting that you left out grope and molest from that statement. Considering the US has as it's President a man who has admitted to and bragged about groping women, I think that says a lot about the context of the world that we now live in. This is someone who was elected. Many voters chose to overlook that fact because other things were more important to them. The harassment, groping and rape of women doesn't rate high on the scale of priorities, at least not when it comes to electing the leader of the United States. As it is, it's apparently acceptable for the leader of the US to belittle a women who testified about an alleged rape at public rallies. Yeah, this is the world we live in, and to some, that's normal and acceptable. Hell, to some it is laudable (you heard the cheering, right?) She was obviously itching to put herself on a public pedestal and go through all of that.

As it is, I prefer to let the discussion lie. I think the stats, which neither of us can confirm, are beside the fact. I think context is much more important, hence I discuss things like the behavior of the US President being of little importance. I have learned from experience that it's not worthwhile to discuss the subject with men who come out and want to argue what the world is like for women, when they are men, and as such, can't even speak from and aren't entitled to speak from a women's perspective. The reasonable ones will admit that they don't have the right or entitlement to make claims about what it is and isn't like to live as a woman in today's world. The unreasonable ones will keep on insisting the world is black, when it's shades of grey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wertbag said:

Can I see if we can get this back on the original subject as that is where I think our main disagreement lays and I'm interested to see where that questioning leads.

In reply to your claims that "a great portion of men walk around as if they have a right to grope, molest and rape us" I expressed disbelief in this being anything but a tiny fraction of guys.  Can you please let me know how you came to the conclusion that large numbers of guys in the West believe rape is okay?

Just be thankful that you'll never have to worry about reporting to your female friends where you're going for a date, who with. And about things like ensuring that nothing is put in your drink by your super nice date who is nevertheless a stranger to you. Or should you go for that nigh time jog, because there's been a string of sexual assaults at the local mall next door? Or feeling insecure about going alone for hikes in the woods. The list goes on. Just take all that for granted (and feel free to label all the females out there as paranoid).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

Just be thankful that you'll never have to worry about reporting to your female friends where you're going for a date, who with. And about things like ensuring that nothing is put in your drink by your super nice date who is nevertheless a stranger to you. Or should you go for that nigh time jog, because there's been a string of sexual assaults at the local mall next door? Or feeling insecure about going alone for hikes in the woods. The list goes on. Just take all that for granted (and feel free to label all the females out there as paranoid).

 

TS, while I understand the sentiment here, and I'm pretty sure (My opinion only)  the majority of men here agree that the fear of assault is terrible to live with, the point being made was that its not the majority of guys being the perpetrators. Its a smaller subset that causes widespread fear.

 

It's like there are now situations occurring where at a concert there might be a pop or a bang and people mass panic thinking its a shooter. Most the time its not, but out of all the people in the world, the shooters are a tiny minority, yet have a huge impact on society. Yet we don't go round claiming "a great portion" of people are going around shooting. Why are we going around suggesting that men as a whole are predators? I'm not sure what the percentage is, 1? 3? 10? But we can be relatively certain using common sense that its not 70-80%. I haven't looked at the figures from Congo, but I don't even think their assault rate is that high among men. (From memory its between 20-25%)

 

I think this is the general point Wertbag is making.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

TS, while I understand the sentiment here, and I'm pretty sure (My opinion only)  the majority of men here agree that the fear of assault is terrible to live with, the point being made was that its not the majority of guys being the perpetrators. Its a smaller subset that causes widespread fear.

 

It's like there are now situations occurring where at a concert there might be a pop or a bang and people mass panic thinking its a shooter. Most the time its not, but out of all the people in the world, the shooters are a tiny minority, yet have a huge impact on society. Yet we don't go round claiming "a great portion" of people are going around shooting. Why are we going around suggesting that men as a whole are predators? I'm not sure what the percentage is, 1? 3? 10? But we can be relatively certain using common sense that its not 70-80%. I haven't looked at the figures from Congo, but I don't even think their assault rate is that high among men. (From memory its between 20-25%)

 

I think this is the general point Wertbag is making.

Date rape is by a tiny majority? Groping is by a tiny majority? Sexual harassment and intimidation in the workplace is by a tiny majority? Should we perhaps ask the opinion of other women on here, where are they, what do they think? I already covered street harassment once before and I remember how that conversation went, so I'm not going there again.

You know that the number of reported assaults is lower than what is estimated, correct? You know the potential reasons why women do not report them? Surely you're aware that a tiny fraction of women out there are going to actually go and report being groped or verbally assaulted because it's widely "accepted" and they would just fear being laughed out of the room?

This conversation is making it very clear how different the universe is, for men and women.

Anyway, the Donald says "it's a very scary time for young men in America." Yep. Very, very scary when a woman might actually talk about all that "accepted" behaviour that occured.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

 Why are we going around suggesting that men as a whole are predators? I'm not sure what the percentage is, 1? 3? 10? But we can be relatively certain using common sense that its not 70-80%. I haven't looked at the figures from Congo, but I don't even think their assault rate is that high among men. (From memory its between 20-25%)

The reason why I wont discuss any stats, is because I think the stats are anything but the truth. Sure some people can claim I can't deal with "the truth" therefore I avoid stats. Shrug. I prefer to talk about what's actually going on/accepted in the public sphere, because I think it's very indicative of the societal and cultural values as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, TruthSeeker0 said:

The reason why I wont discuss any stats, is because I think the stats are anything but the truth. Sure some people can claim I can't deal with "the truth" therefore I avoid stats. Shrug. I prefer to talk about what's actually going on/accepted in the public sphere, because I think it's very indicative of the societal and cultural values as a whole.

 

I think we need to be careful or we as a society will end up in a dangerous position where one hand unsupported claims about most men be predators are made, and on the other men saying most women are likely to falsely accuse them. This would lead to a big divide in trust between men and woman and would cause societies to falter, if not collapse.

 

 If the stats come from well researched centres with good methodology then you have no reason to use them to inform your judgement... unless you are the sort of person that a priori rejects such as basically hoax or unreliable because organisation/money/power whatever.

 

Right now we are firing into the wind, each with a particular perception and opinion, neither backed up by any data.

 

Also I'm aware that assaults are under reported - I've mentioned this fact when replying to other posters. Do I think its so under reported as to provide sufficient weight to the claim that a' good portion', or a 'majority', or 'most' men are predators? No. Not entirely sure how to go about getting accurate data either. Asking men to put their hand up if they have done something without consent that was objected to is hardly going to get an accurate response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Also I'm aware that assaults are under reported - I've mentioned this fact when replying to other posters. Do I think its so under reported as to provide sufficient weight to the claim that a' good portion', or a 'majority', or 'most' men are predators? No. No entirely sure how to go about getting an accurate idea. Asking men to put their hand up if they have done something without consent that was objected to is hardly going to get an accurate response. 

And then there are the grey areas. My daughter, while shopping alone at night recenty, was approached by 3 men. One of them came up behind her, and whispered so close in her ear that she could feel his breath, "you're beautiful." She felt outnumbered, intimidated, and angry.  When she stormed off, they acted offended, calling out to her "what's wrong, I can't tell you you're beautiful?!" She said to me, in what way would this ever be ok, why can't they see that?"

This was not a reportable incident, it is not the sort of thing that shows up in statistics. These men may not have been predators, but their behavior was, in context of the situation, predatorial. This stuff doesn't even show up on the radar.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, freshstart said:

And then there are the grey areas. My daughter, while shopping alone at night recenty, was approached by 3 men. One of them came up behind her, and whispered so close in her ear that she could feel his breath, "you're beautiful." She felt outnumbered, intimidated, and angry.  When she stormed off, they acted offended, calling out to her "what's wrong, I can't tell you you're beautiful?!" She said to me, in what way would this ever be ok, why can't they see that?"

This was not a reportable incident, it is not the sort of thing that shows up in statistics. These men may not have been predators, but their behavior was, in context of the situation, predatorial. This stuff doesn't even show up on the radar.

 

Not a grey area. That is clearly threatening behavior. 

 

On the surface, I get the argument that this issue cuts both ways.  It's true,  we need to be sure that we're not believing wholesale what anyone says about anybody. This is a real issue to be aware of.  But it does not compare to the sexual assault issue. One in six American women has been sexually assaulted. Nowhere near this number of men have been falsely accused. So when rich, white men go on tv and try to convince me they this is a terrible, frightening time to be alive, I'm afraid I just don't buy it. 

 

Of course,  the majority of men are not predators. But a significant number are. Both sides need to recognize this. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I think we need to be careful or we as a society will end up in a dangerous position where one hand unsupported claims about most men be predators are made, and on the other men saying most women are likely to falsely accuse them. This would lead to a big divide in trust between men and woman and would cause societies to falter, if not collapse.

An honest and thorough investigation into allegations goes a long way toward finding the truth. That seems to be impossible to achieve in certain cases involving the elite. Such high profile cases and how they're handled are what form public opinion on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.