Forum Settings
Forums

Men must prove a woman said Yes under tough new rape rules

New
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (4) « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Jan 29, 2015 10:01 PM
Offline
Oct 2010
2269
Pxi2 said:
BatoKusanagi said:

Feminist lawyers disagree.


At least we don't have Israeli/Swedish tier feminism yet.

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape?fb_action_ids=1563368670569771&fb_action_types=og.shares

"...decided to postpone a vote on second and third reading of a bill to add the crime of rape by a woman to the statute book after women’s organizations warned that it would lead to a situation where women would be afraid to charge men with rape."

This makes zero sense.
Jan 29, 2015 10:03 PM
Offline
Oct 2010
2269
traed said:
hentai_proxy said:

They need to be ignored.
Ignoring a problem doesnt make it go away


It is a problem because policy-makers do not ignore it, although it does not have legal standing. Motions with no legal standing must be ignored, otherwise they get political power from the very exposure.

Consider the vast number of conspiracy theories, unfounded claims, illegal motions in courts. If the legal and political systems did not ignore them, they would collapse that same day.
hentai_proxyJan 30, 2015 12:14 AM
Jan 29, 2015 10:04 PM

Offline
Jul 2013
7208
fuck, what a stupid law, a women could just randomly accuse a man of rape and since he doesn't have proof of her saying yes who gives a fuck right?


╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭

Jan 29, 2015 10:10 PM

Offline
May 2013
1411
Fuchsia_ said:
fuck, what a stupid law, a women could just randomly accuse a man of rape and since he doesn't have proof of her saying yes who gives a fuck right?


A woman would never lie about rape silly. :p
Jan 29, 2015 10:18 PM

Offline
Jul 2013
7208
Pxi2 said:
Fuchsia_ said:
fuck, what a stupid law, a women could just randomly accuse a man of rape and since he doesn't have proof of her saying yes who gives a fuck right?


A woman would never lie about rape silly. :p
because all women are innocent and pure, and only men lie.


╮ (. ❛ ᴗ ❛.) ╭

Jan 29, 2015 10:37 PM

Offline
May 2012
7909
This is the dumbest shit of all time. I wanna sue the shit out of their government and I don't live there.
Jan 30, 2015 3:53 AM
Offline
Dec 2013
111
Good thing I don't live in that ccountry
Jan 30, 2015 4:15 AM

Offline
Jun 2013
491
The beginning of the end has begun.
Jan 30, 2015 4:21 AM

Offline
Aug 2014
4382
EVAMAAKU14 said:
The beginning of the end has begun.


When we bow down to the feminazi.
Jan 30, 2015 4:59 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
PoeticJustice said:
This is the dumbest shit of all time. I wanna sue the shit out of their government and I don't live there.


Yes it does for those of us living there it makes anyone who isn't confident with women in the first place even worse. Now 50% of guys are not going to even try to get sex because its just not worth the risk and the rest of us that are ok talking with women will spend most of our time wondering if we are going to jail everytime we have sex.

Negative-Travis said:
BarryManilow said:
you should avoid sex with unstable vindictive nutjobs.

So, women?


Jan 30, 2015 5:04 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Are you sure the daily telegraph isn't just making up bs? It's almost impossible that the courts are forcing the accused part to prove anything, the burden of proof lies with the one making a positive claim, AKA the one accusing the other part of a crime.

I'll freely admit there's a lot of rape myths and there's people who think it's not rape just because the victim was asleep or too drunk too consent. If someone doesn't say no, that doesn't mean yes.
Jan 30, 2015 5:09 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Blackout0219 said:
Are you sure the daily telegraph isn't just making up bs?


This aint no opinion piece this time asking for better measures, this is just informing us that they are now implementing these changes:

"Police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.

Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice."
Jan 30, 2015 5:11 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
After reading this I'm not sure if the burden of proof is 100% on the perpetrator, it just seems to say that you have to prove she said yes, but if you don't it doesn't mean you are guilty.

There's a lot of problems with victim blaming. The majority of rapes are not even reported, the majority of victims think they'll never be believed. False rape accusations are as serious as false accusations for other crimes. It's not a tremendous problem. The way we blame rape victims by talking about their skirts or how much they drink is a much bigger problem.

On the other hand, it says it only applies to DATE RAPE - It's not for every single kind of rape that exists.. I think the daily telegraph is BS, it's impossible that the burden of proof in the UK has been shifted. I think what this law probably means is that the perpetrator or accused must prove that the victim consented when she was tied up, drank too much, was asleep, unconscious; there's situations the victim feels scared and starts feeling apathy and doesn't say no, but body signs show a clear "no"
Jan 30, 2015 5:14 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Spooks_McBones said:
Blackout0219 said:
Are you sure the daily telegraph isn't just making up bs?


This aint no opinion piece this time asking for better measures, this is just informing us that they are now implementing these changes:

"Police and prosecutors must now put a greater onus on rape suspects to demonstrate how the complainant had consented “with full capacity and freedom to do so”.

Campaigners described the move as “a huge step forward” in ensuring fewer rapists escape justice."

This just says there's a higher onus on the accused, you have to prove she did consent because in a lot of rape cases the rapist thinks it's not rape because she didn't specifically say "no" out of fear. It's for the cases when she's drunk, or when she is asleep and can't consent, etc. In case you don't know, there's a LOT of rapists who use the excuse of "she was drunk" or "she seduced me" or "she didn't orally say no" and get away with it. You have to think for both sides

I think I'm gonna research this because it seems impossible that the entire burden of proof is on the accused
Jan 30, 2015 5:19 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Regardless it will reflect badly on any accused if they can't produce the evidence and how exactly are all men who might be accused supposed to get verbal consent with witnesses so you can actually prove it (might as well have them prove they had a bowl movement that morning) and this also means now that all men are going to have to make sure they seek verbal consent with clear meaning and someway be able to save that as evidence in case the girl does turn around the next day and claim rape or you took advantage of her when she was too drunk. To her too drunk could basically mean she had beer goggles on and finds you unattractive in the morning.

Blackout0219 said:
I think what this law probably means is that the perpetrator or accused must prove that the victim consented when she was tied up, drank too much, was asleep, unconscious; there's situations the victim feels scared and starts feeling apathy and doesn't say no, but body signs show a clear "no"


How, how are they expected to produce that proof???
SpooksJan 30, 2015 5:22 AM
Jan 30, 2015 5:26 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Spooks_McBones said:
Regardless it will reflect badly on any accused if they can't produce the evidence and how exactly are all men who might be accused supposed to get verbal consent with witnesses so you can actually prove it (might as well have them prove they had a bowl movement that morning) and this also means now that all men are going to have to make sure they seek verbal consent with clear meaning and someway be able to save that as evidence in case the girl does turn around the next day and claim rape or you took advantage of her when she was too drunk. To her too drunk could basically mean she had beer goggles on and finds you unattractive in the morning.

Yeah it's because of that that I find this unlikely. It's impossible to get that proof with witnesses and records. I'm sure the daily telegraph is interpreting the rule the wrong way because it's impossible.

As for too drunk, that is not a lie however it's unlikely, most rape cases of drunk happen when you deliberately take advantage of her and she can't say no because she doesn't know what's happening. If you were raped while drunk you need to test your alcohol and prove you had alcohol to incapacitate you.

I don't know how they will produce proof that's why I think it's impossible for this law to be like the daily telegraph says, the DT sends a lot of bullshit once in a while so be really careful when you post news. Let's wait to see what other sources say
Jan 30, 2015 6:44 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
I'm sure the daily telegraph is interpreting the rule the wrong way because it's impossible.
California disagrees.
As for too drunk, that is not a lie however it's unlikely, most rape cases of drunk happen when you deliberately take advantage of her and she can't say no because she doesn't know what's happening. If you were raped while drunk you need to test your alcohol and prove you had alcohol to incapacitate you.
Most drunk cases are people just regretting after saying yes.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 7:36 AM

Offline
Mar 2014
22
sigh, even though I strongly disagree with the whole idea, because um... Its unfair? not all men are natural rapists and the whole idea is stupid.. Who would even agree with that law?


anyway that law could be because there may be a lot of rape happening there or something? and doing that (maybe temporarily?) to make the high rape rates go down?? hell I dont know.. the whole thing is.. very very stupid.

Sigh, femanazi's shaming women :(
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.
Jan 30, 2015 8:34 AM

Offline
Jan 2011
4474
Please sign this consent form before I shove my dick in there must be the biggest turn of ever.
Jan 30, 2015 8:48 AM

Offline
Mar 2014
22
JonyJC said:
Please sign this consent form before I shove my dick in there must be the biggest turn of ever.


Hahahahah
Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.
Jan 30, 2015 8:52 AM
Offline
Mar 2013
10447
man I can't wait for the day I overthrow this government.
Jan 30, 2015 9:16 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Immahnoob said:
I'm sure the daily telegraph is interpreting the rule the wrong way because it's impossible.
California disagrees.
As for too drunk, that is not a lie however it's unlikely, most rape cases of drunk happen when you deliberately take advantage of her and she can't say no because she doesn't know what's happening. If you were raped while drunk you need to test your alcohol and prove you had alcohol to incapacitate you.
Most drunk cases are people just regretting after saying yes.

You are wrong. First most cases of rape aren't even prosecuted so it's impossible to measure exact statistics. However I'm talking about when you are too drunk too consent, if you are drunk and can't consent you can't say yes, that's it. In my country you need to provide proof that you were drunk, logically, otherwise. If you took two beers, you can consent - It doens't mean you can't be raped after taking two beers, you can still be forced. Obviously if someone is so wasted that they can't even know what is happening around them, it's rape because there's no consent.

Do you haven any proof that most rape cases that involve being drunk are actually regrets? I have my doubts that it's really like that. But in my country we don't have college campuses so we don't have the problem of rape in college
Jan 30, 2015 9:23 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
If this law is true then it's highly unjust, the burden of proof lies with the one making the accusation. That's how a civilized legal criminal system works. Sometimes you can shift the burden of proof and the law allows it, but never under these circumstances.

Let me be the first to say I'm completely against victim-blaming in rape, I think many problems with rape are caused because we excuse rapists by making up reasons to justify the rape such as "she was too drunk" or "she didn't say no" or "she didn't try to fight back" or "she had a short skirt. I think victim-blaming should be fought, people are not to blame for crimes committed against them, whether it's rape, murder, physical injury, whatever, and rape is one of those crimes that doesn't happen often in dark alleys, it happens from people you know so it's not easy to prevent yourself against it. However I think the way we fix this is to raise social awareness but not with laws that can potentially target innocent men, even if false accusations are not the rule like they are not for other crimes, it still hits the innocent.

Personally, I know people who were raped and who were falsely accused, and let me tell you it sucks. My friend who got raped went to the police and they didn't believe her and thought she was lying. Because of that she went on anti depressants and didn't prosecute the rapist because she was afraid people wouldn't believe her.

I also met a guy who was falsely accused of rape,; every false crime accusation, not necessarily rape but also murder can ruin your life, it sucks, and we should be clear when there is consent or not.

Being drunk and regretting is not an excuse for rape prosecutions, but I know that not every case is like this, there's cases of rapists who on purpose get the victim drunk so that she can't say "no" or take advantage of completely wasted people. If you have sex with someone who's too wasted to consent that's rape, if you can consent it's not rape
Jan 30, 2015 9:32 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
However I'm talking about when you are too drunk too consent
It must be the other parties fault if they are too drunk, indeed. Unless the other party forced them to drink, I don't see how this is a feasible law. Because it is your own volition to drink.
Do you haven any proof that most rape cases that involve being drunk are actually regrets? I have my doubts that it's really like that. But in my country we don't have college campuses so we don't have the problem of rape in college
Even if you would have colleges, the rape in colleges has bad statistics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNsJ1DhqQ-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu90VKEa2xk

Your willful ignorance still persists after I refuted your arguments last time, it seems.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 9:35 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Blackout0219 said:
If you have sex with someone who's too wasted to consent that's rape, if you can consent it's not rape


What if say both were wasted, they start the process and the chick passes out 20% into it but the guy who is also wasted doesn't noticed, too busy with his head buried into the pillow or something. Next day woman wakes up says rape.

Who is right in that situation? who gets fucked in your eyes is that man a rapist?

thats whats always bothered me about these kind of things, its such an in the moment topic based on how people feel at the time and lots of vaguery that I can't see how its even possible to get a truth from it both parties believe they are right and who can say which it is.
Jan 30, 2015 9:39 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
It must be the other parties fault if they are too drunk, indeed. Unless the other party forced them to drink, I don't see how this is a feasible law. Because it is your own volition to drink.

So what? It doesn't matter how drunk you are, that's not really an excuse to rape someone who is not consenting. Do you think it's the victim's fault for being raped after drinking some beers? I have got wasted during my life, it's a way of enjoying parties, and if someone raped me I don't think it would be fair


Your willful ignorance still persists after I refuted your arguments last time, it seems.

LOL dude - You are quoting an institutionsthat is conservative and affiliated to the previous Bush administration. Do you really expect me to take as "proof" something done by american conservatives? The same people who defend global warming is not a big deal? If so, you have to be kidding. If you check conservative sites you'll find all kinds of weird proof, such as proof that god exists, or proof that white people are superior. It's not a reliable source. Why don't you bring me some real proof for your claim that "Most rape while drunk is regret"? It's funny because I've studied rape, I've worked in projects with institutions of rape prevention, and I know for a fact that most cases are not false accusations - Most cases, drunk or not, are legit.
Jan 30, 2015 9:41 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Spooks_McBones said:
Blackout0219 said:
If you have sex with someone who's too wasted to consent that's rape, if you can consent it's not rape


What if say both were wasted, they start the process and the chick passes out 20% into it but the guy who is also wasted doesn't noticed, too busy with his head buried into the pillow or something. Next day woman wakes up says rape.

Who is right in that situation? who gets fucked in your eyes is that man a rapist?

thats whats always bothered me about these kind of things, its such an in the moment topic based on how people feel at the time and lots of vaguery that I can't see how its even possible to get a truth from it both parties believe they are right and who can say which it is.


Your situation is stupid because a man who is so wasted is almost surely incapable of even having an erection. On the other hand, fucking a passed out person is rape. That's the law. And that case is actually one improbable situation, the majority of cases are people taking advantage of drunk victims when they can't specifically say yes. And it happens to men as well
Jan 30, 2015 9:41 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
So what? It doesn't matter how drunk you are, that's not really an excuse to rape someone who is not consenting. Do you think it's the victim's fault for being raped after drinking some beers? I have got wasted during my life, it's a way of enjoying parties, and if someone raped me I don't think it would be fair
That's begging the question, claiming it's already rape. If one is drinking until passing out and then consents, I don't see how it's anyone's fault if they regret afterwards.
something done by american conservatives?
Guilt by association.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 9:45 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Blackout0219 said:

Your situation is stupid because a man who is so wasted is almost surely incapable of even having an erection.


American college students disagree, thats a falsehood Dr Blackout

Blackout0219 said:
On the other hand, fucking a passed out person is rape. That's the law. And that case is actually one improbable situation


Improbable? really. It happens all the time especially with couples who get drunk together there are a ton of times one side of the couple passes out before they finish intercourse. I see you would basically send a man to jail because you won't find a one off case to be standard enough to be looked into. Just call it rape and move on, you can't generalize cases like that.

In that case the man was not a rapist, he was not out to take someone by force or deliberately getting a woman drunk. as far as he knew he would have been having normal drunk intercourse with a woman who engaged him and yet you would have people brand him a rapist for life, someone who deliberately took someone without their consent, yeah thats fair.
SpooksJan 30, 2015 9:49 AM
Jan 30, 2015 9:49 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
That's begging the question, claiming it's already rape. If one is drinking until passing out and then consents, I don't see how it's anyone's fault if they regret afterwards.

No I'm not claiming but I'm not going to claim either that it's just regret, you saying that most cases of drunk rape are regret is an insult to all the people, men or women, who were just drinking for fun and were taken advantage off. If it was someone who's friends with you, or your wife (whatever), don't you think she is a victim? - On the other hand if the person consents, it's not rape, I already said that; I'm not saying it is rape if someone consents, that's logical.
]Guilt by association.

I just want you to present some credible proof, not by a conservative institution, just an impartial organ - Like rainn (institution for rape cases in america) or a PhD study. You are making a claim that literally has zero credible proof that is not biased (example - From a conservative institution) - Obviously if I wanted to trust conservatives I'd also believe global warming doesn't exist, that god exists and Christianity is true, that abortion is evil, etc.

If you want to learn some facts about rape, check out this - It has info on perpetrators and references for every fact.
Jan 30, 2015 9:54 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226

American college students disagree, thats a falsehood Dr Blackout

American college students are not representative of the whole world and the world doesn't center itself around America. On the other hand - Yeah - The more drunk you are the less likely it is you can have an erection. If you are drunk to the point of passing out it's improbable. You are probably talking about people who drank alot, but not enough to lose notion of what's happening .

Improbable? really. It happens all the time especially with couples who get drunk together there are a ton of times one side of the couple passes out before they finish intercourse. I see you would basically send a man to jail because you won't find a one off case to be standard enough to be looked into. Just call it rape and move on, you can't generalize cases like that.

No I wouldn't, I'm a man myself, I know accusations of rape are serious, but I'm not going to assume either that he is guilt free.

In that case the man was not a rapist, he was not out to take someone by force or deliberately getting a woman drunk. as far as he knew he would have been having normal drunk intercourse with a woman who engaged him and yet you would have people brand him a rapist for life, someone who deliberately took someone without their consent, yeah thats fair.

IN that case I don't think it is rape, but only if you are drunk enough to not realize the other person passed out. Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not here saying all men are rapists, I'm a man myself and I know I'm not a rapist. But for being a man I also know there's no excuse for raping someone, it doesn't matter if they are drunk to the point of not being able to say anything, passed out, drugged, wearing short skirts or flirting - You don't have an excuse for rape. Thats my opinion
Jan 30, 2015 9:58 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
No I'm not claiming but I'm not going to claim either that it's just regret, you saying that most cases of drunk rape are regret is an insult to all the people, men or women, who were just drinking for fun and were taken advantage
Too bad they weren't taking advantage of, they consented. I think you don't see how easy it is to take advantage of this law.
check out this
Like the lack of sources helps this link a lot. I'm actually showing evidence that speaks about sources, and you show me this as a counter. Weak.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 10:02 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Blackout0219 said:
but I'm not going to assume either that he is guilt free.


"Innocent until proven guilty"

In those terms you do indeed have to assume he is innocent until evidence or accounts can cast doubt on him.

Thats there to stop people jumping to conclusions and ruining peoples reputations. Although not that it works as people who have been falsely accused are never looked upon the same way again. Even if it was proven people will still see him as an accused rapist and that will follow him forever. Even I would have a hard time feeling comfortable around someone like that even if it was 100% assured they didn't do it because of the stigma.
Jan 30, 2015 10:02 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Too bad they weren't taking advantage of, they consented. I think you don't see how easy it is to take advantage of this law.

Are you retarded? For your argument to be true that would mean all cases of drunk rape were consented, and they are not, there's cases of people so wasted that cant' even say "yes" or "no". If you think the norm is consent, prove it without bringing conservative sites.

EDIT - With this law yeah you can be fucked up really easily. But I'm talking about drunk cases of rape generally. I'm not really talking about this law. I've already disagreed with it, I've already said you can't shift the burden of proof with criminal law

Like the lack of sources helps this link a lot. I'm actually showing evidence that speaks about sources, and you show me this as a counter. Weak.

Are you retarder again? The article has sources inside parenthesis, just because you are lazy to google them it doesn't invalidate anything. Most facts have references to the year (example - 2004) and the institute or people who did the study. So go check it out
Jan 30, 2015 10:03 AM
Offline
Jan 2014
3670
I hope this is satire. If its not, R.I.P. In dubio pro reo
Jan 30, 2015 10:06 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Spooks_McBones said:
Blackout0219 said:
but I'm not going to assume either that he is guilt free.


"Innocent until proven guilty"

In those terms you do indeed have to assume he is innocent until evidence or accounts can cast doubt on him.

Thats there to stop people jumping to conclusions and ruining peoples reputations. Although not that it works as people who have been falsely accused are never looked upon the same way again. Even if it was proven people will still see him as an accused rapist and that will follow him forever. Even I would have a hard time feeling comfortable around someone like that even if it was 100% assured they didn't do it because of the stigma.

I'm thinking of Michael Jackson and child molestation. Yeah that sucked.

Look, I'm not saying presumption of innocence doesn't exist, I also said I don't agree with this law, but the UK sometimes throws out some really retarded laws like blasphemy ones so I'm not surprised. On the other hand, what I was saying is that it's wrong to assume that a victim, specially a female, must be lying if she presented charges after drunk sex. Yeah it can be regret, but there's many legit cases of women being taken advantage off when they can't consent, so I think creating the stigma that rape victims are liars is as bad as creating the stereotype that rapists are always guilty.
Jan 30, 2015 10:13 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
Are you retarded? For your argument to be true that would mean all cases of drunk rape were consented, and they are not, there's cases of people so wasted that cant' even say "yes" or "no". If you think the norm is consent, prove it without bringing conservative sites.
"I don't like your proof so it's not proof."




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 10:18 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Immahnoob said:
Are you retarded? For your argument to be true that would mean all cases of drunk rape were consented, and they are not, there's cases of people so wasted that cant' even say "yes" or "no". If you think the norm is consent, prove it without bringing conservative sites.
"I don't like your proof so it's not proof."


So if I quote you a conservative website to proves god exists do you have to accept the evidence? I don't understand your problem. Biased sources are not acceptable. if you think a conservative institution affiliated with bush administration and republicans is reliable then it's your problem - The same people who promote fuck the rest of the world capitalism and ignore the growing difference between rich and poor, probably the same people who would say Christianity is the religion of the american people.

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience" - You proved me that this sentence is quite true, I used to think it was bullshit
Jan 30, 2015 10:20 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
So if I quote you a conservative website to proves god exists do you have to accept the evidence?
It could be even ISIS if you want, I will read what they say about it.
Biased sources are not acceptable.
You have to prove them biased though.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 10:22 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
Lencurryboy said:
that sounds good
No, it doesn't.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 10:29 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Blackout0219 said:

So if I quote you a conservative website to proves god exists do you have to accept the evidence? I don't understand your problem. Biased sources are not acceptable. if you think a conservative institution affiliated with bush administration and republicans is reliable then it's your problem - The same people who promote fuck the rest of the world capitalism and ignore the growing difference between rich and poor, probably the same people who would say Christianity is the religion of the american people.


I won't accept bias opinion


Has bias opinion.






k....
Jan 30, 2015 10:31 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Spooks_McBones said:
Blackout0219 said:

So if I quote you a conservative website to proves god exists do you have to accept the evidence? I don't understand your problem. Biased sources are not acceptable. if you think a conservative institution affiliated with bush administration and republicans is reliable then it's your problem - The same people who promote fuck the rest of the world capitalism and ignore the growing difference between rich and poor, probably the same people who would say Christianity is the religion of the american people.


I won't accept bias opinion


Has bias opinion.






k....


No, it's not biased for me not to trust groups who claim there's a war on christmas, that global warming doesn't exist, that abortion is murder and that America is a Christian nation. If you think this is biased, then you will admit you accept anything as evidence..

Let me shift things - I'm presenting you the bible and claiming god exists - The bible is proof for god. See? This is the same as quoting a conservative website ;)
Jan 30, 2015 10:40 AM

Offline
Aug 2013
15696
Blackout0219 said:


No, it's not biased for me not to trust groups who claim there's a war on christmas, that global warming doesn't exist, that abortion is murder and that America is a Christian nation. If you think this is biased, then you will admit you accept anything as evidence..

Let me shift things - I'm presenting you the bible and claiming god exists - The bible is proof for god. See? This is the same as quoting a conservative website ;)


But it is bias:

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.

your unwillingness to even acknowledge their point of view is in essence bias. I'm not trying to say that they are too not bias but I am pointing out the irony of saying one source of information is bias whilst everyone including yourself is also bias. So you must discredit any opinion pieces including ones you agree with.
Jan 30, 2015 10:45 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Spooks_McBones said:
Blackout0219 said:


No, it's not biased for me not to trust groups who claim there's a war on christmas, that global warming doesn't exist, that abortion is murder and that America is a Christian nation. If you think this is biased, then you will admit you accept anything as evidence..

Let me shift things - I'm presenting you the bible and claiming god exists - The bible is proof for god. See? This is the same as quoting a conservative website ;)


But it is bias:

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.

your unwillingness to even acknowledge their point of view is in essence bias. I'm not trying to say that they are too not bias but I am pointing out the irony of saying one source of information is bias whilst everyone including yourself is also bias. So you must discredit any opinion pieces including ones you agree with.


I understand that, and I'm not saying everything conservatives say is wrong... But I'm tired of arguing with people, specially Christians, who quote conservative websites to prove conservatives are right. Conservatives or ANY political group follow their ideology, so they twist the statistics to conform evidence; it's extremely easy to do that - Liberals do the same, don't worry - I don't like proof that comes from groups associated with political sides; if you want to prove something, then bring me impartial evidence, specially the one made by specialists on the matter.

To give you an example that conservatives in my country use to twist rape statistics - If you conduct study about rape prevalence and only consider rape when there is physical harm (like beating, punches, kicks, etc.) then obviously you'll get a result that says less people are raped - If you account that people can be raped and not resist because they are scared, or that people can be asleep, or passed out, then the statistics of rape are higher. This is one example of how you can fallaciously twist statistics to your benefit. Why do you think conservatives have "proof" that global warming doesn't exist or that gays contracts AIDS and straight people don't?
Jan 30, 2015 10:52 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
ut I'm tired of arguing with people, specially Christians, who quote conservative websites to prove conservatives are right. Conservatives or ANY political group follow their ideology, so they twist the statistics to conform evidence;

1. I'm not Christian, I'm an agnostic atheist.
2. I don't care about conservatives, I'm not a conservationist.
3. They point out why your statistics suck and why drunk rape law is bullshit, that's why I'm using them, not to push a conservationist

Also, you are being biased and illogical, they are wrong because they are conservationists? They are biased in our case because they're biased in other cases? CDC made a mistake with their statistics with the questions they asked, and got to some retarded conclusions with their rape statistics, not only that, the women interviewed answered positively to this type of question:
"“When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”"
This is ambiguous and based on emotion.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
Jan 30, 2015 10:57 AM

Offline
Apr 2013
4793
In the US i can get charged for rape simply because the chick regretted it the morning after.

Bullshit.
Jan 30, 2015 10:58 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
Immahnoob said:
ut I'm tired of arguing with people, specially Christians, who quote conservative websites to prove conservatives are right. Conservatives or ANY political group follow their ideology, so they twist the statistics to conform evidence;

1. I'm not Christian, I'm an agnostic atheist.
2. I don't care about conservatives, I'm not a conservationist.
3. They point out why your statistics suck and why drunk rape law is bullshit, that's why I'm using them, not to push a conservationist

Also, you are being biased and illogical, they are wrong because they are conservationists? They are biased in our case because they're biased in other cases? CDC made a mistake with their statistics with the questions they asked, and got to some retarded conclusions with their rape statistics, not only that, the women interviewed answered positively to this type of question:
"“When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?” A majority of the 1.3 million women (61.5 percent) the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced this sort of “alcohol or drug facilitated penetration.”"
This is ambiguous and based on emotion.

I don't understand the last part. What relevance has the question of how many people had sex with you before? [61.5%, even if it's true doesn't justify ignoring women with legit cases of being taken advantage of - And laws about consent aren't bullshit, if you are drunk and can't consent, it's rape, this goes for women and form men who are raped - If you think it's ok to have sex with someone who is too drunk to even know what they are doing - you have some problems]

I'm sorry but I've got sot tired of debating neo conservatives that I can't stand looking at their sources.. And yeah I may be biased, but so are you since you ignored my source about the perpetrator profile despite the fact it's backed up by previous studies.

Check out rainn : https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

It answers some basic questions and including your question about drunk sex. the answer is right there

Immahnoob, if you really think it's bs - check out this http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

The conclusions are that the majority of rapes are trough the used of force, however the difference between rape trough intoxication and rape with force is not statistically significant, as stated in the discussion and results. Now go shove your conservative sources somewhere else. Also those are repeat offenders, so it's really not a false accusation anymore
BlakidoJan 30, 2015 11:14 AM
Jan 30, 2015 11:05 AM

Offline
Mar 2012
17649
NudeBear said:
In the US i can get charged for rape simply because the chick regretted it the morning after.

Bullshit.
In the US you can get charged for murder simply because you were nearby when someone died.

Bullshit.

Both of those things could happen, in theory. But are they likely to happen? No.
LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.
Jan 30, 2015 11:10 AM
Offline
Jul 2014
226
ImmahJosh said:
NudeBear said:
In the US i can get charged for rape simply because the chick regretted it the morning after.

Bullshit.
In the US you can get charged for murder simply because you were nearby when someone died.

Bullshit.

Both of those things could happen, in theory. But are they likely to happen? No.

Yeah I agree, people overreact on false accusations because it's not as likely to happen, most accusations for any crime are legit.

On the other hand, if happens more if you're black...
Jan 30, 2015 11:15 AM

Offline
Apr 2012
19564
I think you're either retarded or really retarded. I don't think you understand I'm not arguing that drunk rape is legal, drunk rape IS ILLEGAL, that's the actual problem. And you don't understand what that question means? Do you speak English? It's a vague and based on emotion question. Most women there were surveyed in the statistics of the CDC (1 in 5 women raped in a lifetime lol) answered that question with a "YES". "When you were drunk, high, drugged or passed out (GG ambiguity, GG faulty methodology, GG appeals to emotion) AND unable to consent how many people ever had vaginal sex with you?".

"What does that mean? If a woman was unconscious or severely incapacitated, everyone would call it rape. But what about sex while inebriated? Few people would say that intoxicated sex alone constitutes rape — indeed, a nontrivial percentage of all customary sexual intercourse, including marital intercourse, probably falls under that definition (and is therefore criminal according to the CDC)."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
If you want the same proof in words instead of a video.
I doubt the alcohol they had was forced down their throat by their so-called "perpetrator". And you can't "verbally force" anyone, influencing them is one thing, but where do you draw the line at this "influence"?
I'm sorry but I've got sot tired of debating neo conservatives that I can't stand looking at their sources.. And yeah I may be biased, but so are you since you ignored my source about the perpetrator profile despite the fact it's backed up by previous studies.
I don't see how the profile of the rapist is relevant to the drunk rape law, you're talking nonsense.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
This topic has been locked and is no longer available for discussion.
Pages (4) « 1 [2] 3 4 »

More topics from this board

Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )

Luna - Aug 2, 2021

272 by traed »»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM

» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )

Desolated - Jul 30, 2021

50 by Desolated »»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM

» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.

Desolated - Aug 5, 2021

1 by Bourmegar »»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM

» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor law

Desolated - Aug 3, 2021

17 by kitsune0 »»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM

» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To Itself

Desolated - Aug 5, 2021

10 by Desolated »»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM
It’s time to ditch the text file.
Keep track of your anime easily by creating your own list.
Sign Up Login