Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Bit Banger

Here’s a large part of our problem

27 posts in this topic

In the last article linked in the recent thread about a bust in COS, they kept referring to the arrested individual as a “trafficker” when from the discription he’s merely a pimp.  No mention of coercion, only persuasion, of presenting a job opportunity to someone who answered his employment ad.   He facilitated the snitch making a living as a prostitute, claiming only 30% of her income.  This type of reporting smears the image of prostitution in the minds of the public, conflating the definition of a booking agent with the vile practice of slavery.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately trafficker and trafficking is gong to be used by LE and the media as a way to promote their puritanical agenda against the ladies who work as sex workers and gentlemen who partake of their services.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the new war on drugs....the war on sex! It’s everywhere! How many famous people have been accused of sexual harassment? Same thing here, men are going to be called traffickers. It’s all stupid! The lines are all blurry, so watch your steps people! 

A wise man said, “Trust and verify!” 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The piece on KKTV refers to her as a "human trafficking survivor" although it doesn't mention that she had done anything against her will, or that she was underage for that matter. It's really scary how the media uses terms like that to sway public opinion. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mustang87 said:

The piece on KKTV refers to her as a "human trafficking survivor" although it doesn't mention that she had done anything against her will, or that she was underage for that matter. It's really scary how the media uses terms like that to sway public opinion. 

But it’s not just the media. They play their part for sure but it’s not they’re just spinning duck tales. This is a direct quote from the officer speaking on the piece. 

"There's clearly a demand," Black said. "If there wasn't a demand, we wouldn't have traffickers. So not only do we take a look at dealing with the traffickers, we are also taking a look and arresting Johns that are making choices to be a part of this lifestyle."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

But it’s not just the media. They play their part for sure but it’s not they’re just spinning duck tales. This is a direct quote from the officer speaking on the piece. 

"There's clearly a demand," Black said. "If there wasn't a demand, we wouldn't have traffickers. So not only do we take a look at dealing with the traffickers, we are also taking a look and arresting Johns that are making choices to be a part of this lifestyle."

Agreed, but it wasn't in quotes in the KKTV piece: http://www.kktv.com/content/news/Human-trafficking-suspect-arrested-in-Springs-480540631.html

Those were the words the reporter chose to use.  My degree is in print journalism and back in the day we were tought not to take stories exactly the way they were packaged for us by authorities and actually do a little reporting in search of the truth. This reporter was happy to just take the piece the cops gave him and run with it verbatim. The police are expected to have an agenda, the press are not supposed to. 

Edited by Mustang87
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Melissa has it right - The War on Sex. It began on the college campus where due process was thrown out the window for young males. Then the MeToo movement completely eliminated due process, replacing it with the lynch mobs of social media. BTW, the police POI had it right because Federal code does not make a distinction between trafficking and consensual prostitution.  As I’ve said before this war is being waged by both the Left & Right, each for their own reasons.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

I think Melissa has it right - The War on Sex. It began on the college campus where due process was thrown out the window for young males. Then the MeToo movement completely eliminated due process, replacing it with the lynch mobs of social media. BTW, the police POI had it right because Federal code does not make a distinction between trafficking and consensual prostitution.  As I’ve said before this war is being waged by both the Left & Right, each for their own reasons.

That’s actually not how due process works. The instances you site all occurred within private entities. Even the college campuses, while public mostly, still have their own process for handling these situations. So let’s move past “due process” because it doesn’t exist in this case. They didn’t go before a judge. Charges weren’t filled. And none are in jail. The companies and colleges did exercise their full legal right to terminate or expel where they deemed appropriate leaving an opening for any “wrongfully accused” to take appropriate legal matters.

I really don’t understand why it’s so hard to see that some people have really just had enough of terrible societal norms, and decided not to sit quietly and simply take it as usual. 

As for those “young men” who have had their lives ruined; the stats across the board from almost any source trusted or otherwiseare are not on your side when it comes to falsely reported accusations and the ruination of those in the receiving end. And yes when it does happen it’s terrible, but it’s mostly not the case. 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JoDoe,

So you’re OK with the Rolling Stone UVA article?  You’re OK with people being publicly vilified based solely on someone’s word?  Even if that person was only a witness to consensual activity?  You’re OK with people losing their livelihoods for perceived sexual misconduct?

Yes, I get that “due process” is a government issue and that private institutions are not held to the same standards.  But this nation has been built on the Rule of Law.  Lynch mobs and vigilantes have always been suspect, yet in the War on Sex they are accepted.

The reason the Bill Cosby & Taylor Swift trials are so important is because they address misconduct issues using the judicial system.  I was glad to see Taylor Swift prevail IN COURT. It was the correct way to settle the issue.

The hypocrisy of social media campaigns against bullying is astounding when social media becomes the biggest bully on the block.

EDIT:

How many of those stats about “false accusation” are because the defendant chose to go way w/o pursuing a challenge?  Or couldn’t afford to challenge The System?  

Edited by Bit Banger
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I agree with the general sentiment of this thread, a couple of nits.

Take with a grain of salt, but, the piece from the TV station states that she was threatened: "According to Weldon's arrest papers, just hours before his arrest, a human trafficking survivor called police late Sunday morning to say she was being threatened by the suspect".

Yes, this guy is basically a street level pimp, but it gets blurry pimp vs trafficking when coercion, threats are involved.

This thing will get pled down to a simple pimping charge and will not be reported as that does not fit the narrative that LE and do-gooders want.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

JoDoe,

So you’re OK with the Rolling Stone UVA article?  You’re OK with people being publicly vilified based solely on someone’s word?  Even if that person was only a witness to consensual activity?  You’re OK with people losing their livelihoods for perceived sexual misconduct?

Yes, I get that “due process” is a government issue and that private institutions are not held to the same standards.  But this nation has been built on the Rule of Law.  Lynch mobs and vigilantes have always been suspect, yet in the War on Sex they are accepted.

The reason the Bill Cosby & Taylor Swift trials are so important is because they address misconduct issues using the judicial system.  I was glad to see Taylor Swift prevail IN COURT. It was the correct way to settle the issue.

The hypocrisy of social media campaigns against bullying is astounding when social media becomes the biggest bully on the block.

EDIT:

How many of those stats about “false accusation” are because the defendant chose to go way w/o pursuing a challenge?  Or couldn’t afford to challenge The System?  

Personally I dislike it. I think if things were going to be made public it should come after an investigation or trial or really any deterministic approach. So there’s that. 

As for Rolling Stone they fucked up. And that one very fucked up story is now being held as the banner and rallying cry for rapes don’t actually happen and women are all liars. 

To your edit point really only a few cases actually make it to trial. That’s just a matter of fact with rape in general. This is easily searched on the internet. I’m not just pulling things out of thin air. 

Here’s a question; if the providers on this board express I very real notion and fear of rape from guys paying for it even though the women are active participants, why wouldn’t guys beloved by millions and in a position of power, and unfamiliar with people telling them no not do the same? Or college dudes preying on drunk women? 

Are you going to say it never happens? Or implying the frequency is far less than believed?  

Oh The Rule of Law really just means that everyone is subject to the law. Government officials, police officers, celebrities (I’m actually laughing at the idea that these people generally face punishment), and pretty much everyone under the sun of the nation. With that being said those companies and universities are operating under the rule of law in that they can legally fire/hire and expel if individuals do anything to violate their contracts with said entity because laws are in place that allow them to do such things. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Laci French said:

Make love not war ✌️ 

That w as s the chant on campus when I was there.

Of course that was the 70's 😂

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JoDoe27 said:

Personally I dislike it. I think if things were going to be made public it should come after an investigation or trial or really any deterministic approach. So there’s that. 

As for Rolling Stone they fucked up. And that one very fucked up story is now being held as the banner and rallying cry for rapes don’t actually happen and women are all liars. 

To your edit point really only a few cases actually make it to trial. That’s just a matter of fact with rape in general. This is easily searched on the internet. I’m not just pulling things out of thin air. 

Here’s a question; if the providers on this board express I very real notion and fear of rape from guys paying for it even though the women are active participants, why wouldn’t guys beloved by millions and in a position of power, and unfamiliar with people telling them no not do the same? Or college dudes preying on drunk women? 

Are you going to say it never happens? Or implying the frequency is far less than believed?  

Oh The Rule of Law really just means that everyone is subject to the law. Government officials, police officers, celebrities (I’m actually laughing at the idea that these people generally face punishment), and pretty much everyone under the sun of the nation. With that being said those companies and universities are operating under the rule of law in that they can legally fire/hire and expel if individuals do anything to violate their contracts with said entity because laws are in place that allow them to do such things. 

My edit questioned how many young men walked away w/o fighting the accusations because they didn’t have the resources required. I have no problem with private institutions’ enforcement if an individual truly violates their contract(code of conduct), but how many “investigations”  and judgements are based on evidence & facts instead of perceptions?

I do NOT subscribe to the “all women are liars”. To my mind rape is a crime of violence.  Not some drunken hookup or a transaction you later regret.  I do believe everyone should be held responsible for the decisions they make & should not be allowed to withdraw consent days (years!) later.  How many of those college dudes are equally as drunk as their partners?  Is agreeing to “Sleep with me & you’ve got the part.” P4P(a commercial transaction) or something more sinister?  Is the YL coerced by the big, bad producer, or by her own desire for advancement?

0

Share this post


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

My edit questioned how many young men walked away w/o fighting the accusations because they didn’t have the resources required. I have no problem with private institutions’ enforcement if an individual truly violates their contract(code of conduct), but how many “investigations”  and judgements are based on evidence & facts instead of perceptions?

I do NOT subscribe to the “all women are liars”. To my mind rape is a crime of violence.  Not some drunken hookup or a transaction you later regret.  I do believe everyone should be held responsible for the decisions they make & should not be allowed to withdraw consent days (years!) later.  How many of those college dudes are equally as drunk as their partners?  Is agreeing to “Sleep with me & you’ve got the part.” P4P(a commercial transaction) or something more sinister?  Is the YL coerced by the big, bad producer, or by her own desire for advancement?

I still don’t think as many you as you think. Typing in my phone so it’s a bit difficult but even when the numbers boiled down to falsely accused that went to trial are still astronomicalIy low. I wish it didn’t happen but does just not very often. 

With the company firings...if I had to guess and be completely honest I’d be willing to wager there were probably instances in the past where those individuals were reported internally. Or it was known either first hand or through rumors, but nonetheless it was known. And when shit hit the fan and the liability became too great. That is just pure speculation. The funny thing about it though is with all the Hollywood accusations how many have you seen fight it? VS issuing a half assed apology eluding to the fact they maybe did something inappropriate. They actually have the resources and can easily mount a case but that’s not really happening if at all. to answer your question we don’t know. We are only ever privy to the end result. And how many of those women have actually advanced after making a claim? 

As for college. I remember my college days. And I sure as shit remember dudes that would intentionally try to get chicks drunk for that reason. It wasn’t hard to find and terrible see the frequency. I also remember My friends and I had some pretty hard rules to protect ourselves which ultimately boiled down to making sure we all came together and we’d all leave together. Get the number, call her tomorrow, get home safe. Fuck the games or questions. For every Rolling Stone falsity I’m certain we can find a Brock Turner situation as well. 

I’m not trying to be antogonistic here so keep that in mind. Do you honestly think there are more cases of false claims and regretful one night stands than guys intentionally being malicious? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All media is now propaganda. It is only a question of who they propagandize for. Certainly there are religious fanatics opposed to sex happy to jump on any band wagon, but that is not it. It's money. As subjects of the United States, we represent a commercial commodity. Making money outside absolute Government control is not tolerated. Consider pot. It was "well documented" (sarcasm alert!) for decades that pot was a "gateway drug", certain to drop users I.Q by 50 points and start them on a guaranteed path of heroin addiction and eventual death from overdose. Legalization and the rolling in of TAXES instantly transformed it into something harmless. Women are a similar commodity in the eyes of Government.  Prostitution will be a vile, dangerous, exploitative, morally intolerable, activity engaged in by filthy sluts and depraved perverts....until 10 seconds after it becomes legal and taxable. Then the people will magically transform into sex workers and clients. Until then, only "trash whores" will do this, instead of fucking on a long term contract ( marriage) or blowing for drinks in a bar like a decent woman. This is the kind of judgement and villification that awaits any worthless, criminals who try to cheat Governments out of their God Given right to absolutely control every cent of every subject.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ilovewomen wrote: "Unfortunately trafficker and trafficking is gong to be used by LE and the media as a way to promote their puritanical agenda against the ladies who work as sex workers and gentlemen"

Mustang87 wrote: "It's really scary how the media uses terms like that to sway public opinion."

JoeDoe27 "But it’s not just the media. They play their part for sure "

AdmiralC "All media is now propaganda."

People, I need your help. There's something wrong with my Internet connection!

More specifically, I did a search on "FOSTA" - simply that term - the acronym for the new supposedly "anti-sex-trafficking" (but actually anti web sites that enable exchange of information about sex work) law.  I was expecting to find media "propaganda" promoting "their puritanical agenda" in favor of FOSTA and against sex work websites, sex workers and clients. But my search failed. I didn't find any media.

I did find a number of non-media articles and opinion pieces that are strongly opposed to FOSTA and its effects, and sympathetic to the difficult situation of sex workers under the new law.

"A new law intended to curb sex trafficking threatens the future of the internet as we know it"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom

"Trump Just Signed SESTA/FOSTA, a Law Sex Workers Say Will Literally Kill Them"

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvxeyq/trump-signed-fosta-sesta-into-law-sex-work

"FOSTA-SESTA's real aim is to silence sex workers online"

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/fosta-sesta-silencing-sex-workers/

"Sex Workers Fear for Their Future: How SESTA Is Putting Many Prostitutes in Peril"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sex-workers-fear-for-their-future-how-sesta-is-putting-many-prostitutes-in-peril

"Why Internet Advocates Are Against the Anti–Sex Trafficking Bill It’s well-intentioned—but it won’t fix the problem, and will hurt the internet." [this is actually the least anti-FOSTA of the articles i found]

https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/the-antisex-trafficking-bill-sesta-fosta-will-hurt-the-internet.html

"If Lawmakers Want To Protect Sex Workers, They Must Listen To Us"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sex-workers-bill-fosta-sesta_us_5aa1924fe4b04c33cb6cecb2

"The Anti-Sex Traffickers Bill Sounds Good—Until You Look a Little Closer" --- "SEX WORKERS AND ADVOCATES INSIST THAT CHILD TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION IS ACTUALLY AGGRAVATED BY THE CRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK"

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a19747856/fosta-sesta-explainer-sex-trafficking-bill/

"Here’s What’s Wrong With the So-Called Anti–Sex Trafficking Bill"

https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-fosta.html

"Trump Signs 'FOSTA’ Into Law, Enabling Internet Censorship That Puts Sex Workers at Risk"

https://gizmodo.com/trump-signs-fosta-into-law-enabling-internet-censorsh-1825177535

""Sex Workers Fighting Back Against SESTA/FOSTA With Their Own Social Network... And Plan To Expose Politicians"

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180402/06272439542/sex-workers-fighting-back-against-sesta-fosta-with-their-own-social-network-plan-to-expose-politicians.shtml

 

So - why did I fail to find media praising the FOSTA law? Why did I instead find a slew of articles that are hostile to FOSTA and friendly to sex workers, on non-media web sites? There must be an explanation. Maybe my Internet connection runs to an alternate Earth that has no media.

By the way - if you are one of the people I quoted, who used the word media in this thread, you should be careful not to refer to the following sites as media: vox.com, motherboard.vice.com, engadget.com, thedailybeast.com, slate.com, huffingtonpost.com, elle.com, thecut.com, gizmodo.com, techdirt.com. You would contradict what you wrote earlier if you call any of those sites media, so don't do that.

 

Edited by N6_in_the_village
small cut
1

Share this post


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

My edit questioned how many young men walked away w/o fighting the accusations because they didn’t have the resources required. I have no problem with private institutions’ enforcement if an individual truly violates their contract(code of conduct), but how many “investigations”  and judgements are based on evidence & facts instead of perceptions?

I do NOT subscribe to the “all women are liars”. To my mind rape is a crime of violence.  Not some drunken hookup or a transaction you later regret.  I do believe everyone should be held responsible for the decisions they make & should not be allowed to withdraw consent days (years!) later.  How many of those college dudes are equally as drunk as their partners?  Is agreeing to “Sleep with me & you’ve got the part.” P4P(a commercial transaction) or something more sinister?  Is the YL coerced by the big, bad producer, or by her own desire for advancement?

" To my mind rape is a crime of violence." So in your mind, "I didn't use violence" is an ironclad defense against rape. "Your honor, I didn't use a gun, knife, or other weapon, I didn't punch, hit, kick, or choke her, therefore I can't have raped her. IF THERE WAS NO HIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT."

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Laci French said:

Make love not war ✌️ 

Recognize this from the sixties still great advice

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, N6_in_the_village said:

ilovewomen wrote: "Unfortunately trafficker and trafficking is gong to be used by LE and the media as a way to promote their puritanical agenda against the ladies who work as sex workers and gentlemen"

Mustang87 wrote: "It's really scary how the media uses terms like that to sway public opinion."

JoeDoe27 "But it’s not just the media. They play their part for sure "

AdmiralC "All media is now propaganda."

People, I need your help. There's something wrong with my Internet connection!

More specifically, I did a search on "FOSTA" - simply that term - the acronym for the new supposedly "anti-sex-trafficking" (but actually anti web sites that enable exchange of information about sex work) law.  I was expecting to find media "propaganda" promoting "their puritanical agenda" in favor of FOSTA and against sex work websites, sex workers and clients. But my search failed. I didn't find any media.

I did find a number of non-media articles and opinion pieces that are strongly opposed to FOSTA and its effects, and sympathetic to the difficult situation of sex workers under the new law.

"A new law intended to curb sex trafficking threatens the future of the internet as we know it"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/4/13/17172762/fosta-sesta-backpage-230-internet-freedom

"Trump Just Signed SESTA/FOSTA, a Law Sex Workers Say Will Literally Kill Them"

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qvxeyq/trump-signed-fosta-sesta-into-law-sex-work

"FOSTA-SESTA's real aim is to silence sex workers online"

https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/11/fosta-sesta-silencing-sex-workers/

"Sex Workers Fear for Their Future: How SESTA Is Putting Many Prostitutes in Peril"

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sex-workers-fear-for-their-future-how-sesta-is-putting-many-prostitutes-in-peril

"Why Internet Advocates Are Against the Anti–Sex Trafficking Bill It’s well-intentioned—but it won’t fix the problem, and will hurt the internet." [this is actually the least anti-FOSTA of the articles i found]

https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/the-antisex-trafficking-bill-sesta-fosta-will-hurt-the-internet.html

"If Lawmakers Want To Protect Sex Workers, They Must Listen To Us"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sex-workers-bill-fosta-sesta_us_5aa1924fe4b04c33cb6cecb2

"The Anti-Sex Traffickers Bill Sounds Good—Until You Look a Little Closer" --- "SEX WORKERS AND ADVOCATES INSIST THAT CHILD TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATION IS ACTUALLY AGGRAVATED BY THE CRIMINALIZATION OF SEX WORK"

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a19747856/fosta-sesta-explainer-sex-trafficking-bill/

"Here’s What’s Wrong With the So-Called Anti–Sex Trafficking Bill"

https://www.thecut.com/2018/03/sesta-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-fosta.html

"Trump Signs 'FOSTA’ Into Law, Enabling Internet Censorship That Puts Sex Workers at Risk"

https://gizmodo.com/trump-signs-fosta-into-law-enabling-internet-censorsh-1825177535

""Sex Workers Fighting Back Against SESTA/FOSTA With Their Own Social Network... And Plan To Expose Politicians"

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180402/06272439542/sex-workers-fighting-back-against-sesta-fosta-with-their-own-social-network-plan-to-expose-politicians.shtml

 

So - why did I fail to find media praising the FOSTA law? Why did I instead find a slew of articles that are hostile to FOSTA and friendly to sex workers, on non-media web sites? There must be an explanation. Maybe my Internet connection runs to an alternate Earth that has no media.

By the way - if you are one of the people I quoted, who used the word media in this thread, you should be careful not to refer to the following sites as media: vox.com, motherboard.vice.com, engadget.com, thedailybeast.com, slate.com, huffingtonpost.com, elle.com, thecut.com, gizmodo.com, techdirt.com. You would contradict what you wrote earlier if you call any of those sites media, so don't do that.

 

That’s the thing though. I wasn’t saying you can’t find anything from the media in opposition to this. In fact there’s a ton of outlets going to great lengths to say why FOSTA/SESTA are terrible. In my specific quote up there I was saying it’s not just a media effort to paint this situation in one direction. The officers directly quota made sure to use “trafficking” in their language. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2018 at 9:01 AM, Melissa Sterling said:

This is the new war on drugs....the war on sex! It’s everywhere! How many famous people have been accused of sexual harassment? Same thing here, men are going to be called traffickers. It’s all stupid! The lines are all blurry, so watch your steps people! 

A wise man said, “Trust and verify!” 

Sorry, not the same as sexual harassment, that's a completely different issue and one I don't take lightly. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, N6_in_the_village said:

" To my mind rape is a crime of violence." So in your mind, "I didn't use violence" is an ironclad defense against rape. "Your honor, I didn't use a gun, knife, or other weapon, I didn't punch, hit, kick, or choke her, therefore I can't have raped her. IF THERE WAS NO HIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT."

Not exactly. There are plenty of circumstances where violence is not involved: age of consent situations for one. But two drunken college students consensually hooking up after a party does not become rape when one has regrets the next morning. If they were both drunk, charge them both; if it violates code of conduct, expel both. 😱

(Yes, there are predators who ply YL with drinks, while remaining sober themselves to score. But even there the YL has some responsibility to say, “I’ve had enough!”)

{NOTE: I was mid-20s, married, working, and off-campus for college. I didn’t get involved in the party scene.}

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

Not exactly. There are plenty of circumstances where violence is not involved: age of consent situations for one. But two drunken college students consensually hooking up after a party does not become rape when one has regrets the next morning. If they were both drunk, charge them both; if it violates code of conduct, expel both. 😱

(Yes, there are predators who ply YL with drinks, while remaining sober themselves to score. But even there the YL has some responsibility to say, “I’ve had enough!”)

{NOTE: I was mid-20s, married, working, and off-campus for college. I didn’t get involved in the party scene.}

You know in the situation you just described, two drunk people have sex and the next day regret sets in and suddenly claiming rape, the burden of proof is on the person claiming rape. Yes? For this reason the frequency of reporting is heavily diminished because it’s incredibly hard to prove just how drunk someone was the next day and you’re both trying to recount the story. Also, there is an unbelievably negative reaction to women who claim they’ve been raped. This is an actually known thing to occur. So again it just doesn’t happen often. And going back to proof of burden let’s say a police report is filed and the other person is brought in for questioning. Their statement is then taken and that goes up the chain to see if charges should be filed. 

That burden of proof is there to require the accusing party to prove what they say is true so people can’t just make wild accusations and put someone behind bars. <- this fails at times as well. But come on man. At some point you gotta open your eyes to the fact that these rampant claims of innocent young men, and family guys suddenly having their lives ruined by a single regretful woman are just not founded in reality. Does it happen? Yes. Should it happen? No. Is the frequency outrageously high? Not even a little. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, JoDoe27 said:

You know in the situation you just described, two drunk people have sex and the next day regret sets in and suddenly claiming rape, the burden of proof is on the person claiming rape. Yes? For this reason the frequency of reporting is heavily diminished because it’s incredibly hard to prove just how drunk someone was the next day and you’re both trying to recount the story. Also, there is an unbelievably negative reaction to women who claim they’ve been raped. This is an actually known thing to occur. So again it just doesn’t happen often. And going back to proof of burden let’s say a police report is filed and the other person is brought in for questioning. Their statement is then taken and that goes up the chain to see if charges should be filed. 

That burden of proof is there to require the accusing party to prove what they say is true so people can’t just make wild accusations and put someone behind bars. <- this fails at times as well. But come on man. At some point you gotta open your eyes to the fact that these rampant claims of innocent young men, and family guys suddenly having their lives ruined by a single regretful woman are just not founded in reality. Does it happen? Yes. Should it happen? No. Is the frequency outrageously high? Not even a little. 

Two words jump out of ^this^ post:

”police” and “burden of proof”

When dealing with our judicial system (police, DAs, courts, etc.) I totally agree with you. As you say, protections are in place.

But on today’s college campus with DoEd’s recent “Dear Colleague” letter - not so much.  Where is the “burden of proof” in student tribunals?

But in today’s corporate world - not so much.  Where is the “burden of proof” in the MeToo movement?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here is a youtube video talking about FOSTA from a left-leaning independent news source.   It seems to me established media both on left and right are for FOSTA

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Bit Banger said:

Two words jump out of ^this^ post:

”police” and “burden of proof”

When dealing with our judicial system (police, DAs, courts, etc.) I totally agree with you. As you say, protections are in place.

But on today’s college campus with DoEd’s recent “Dear Colleague” letter - not so much.  Where is the “burden of proof” in student tribunals?

But in today’s corporate world - not so much.  Where is the “burden of proof” in the MeToo movement?

 

Man, I don’t have anything else for you on this. It’s been an issue for decades, it’s no longer able to be kept secret, people are having major course corrections in an effort to make things right. 

Schools were notoriously slow to react if at all. That’s a known fact. 

Corporations operate in their own best interest. Period. The funny thing is I had an ex that was a lawyer who handled corporate firings. I can assure you several internal investigations occur before someone is fired after having a complaint such as this levied against them otherwise it opens up those corporations to all sorts of legal issues. But I will ask where was this energy and dislike of mob mentality when members of this board, the president, media outlets, and loads of people in this country were demanding the NFL fire players? 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0