Unusually for Jhess, there isn't actually a single overt insult in that post. Your reaction is completely out of whack with what she actually said.
Feminism
- Thread starter Úlfheðinn
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
pentagathus
Baron
The thing is she actually did present an argument along with the insults, whereas you have just responded with insults and nothing else. If you want her to calm down before having a discussion you could have just said that you won't reply to her until she's calm. I don't see how you think any of your posts are likely to sooth the situation. Although I can't see that discussion going much further than it has.
Ninjad.
Ninjad.
Don't have much time but a clarification and a simple point: I was making my argument againt a particular case, in which intercourse is certain and the consent is contested. What I'm saying is that if the victim claims that there was no consent, it should be enough until it's not proven otherwise. And this is not as radical as you think it to be. When you claim that someone robbed you, you're not expected to prove that you didn't give your money voluntarily, it's expected from the suspect to prove that the money was given voluntarily.
That's not how it works. If a person is robbed, they are believed on the face that they were robbed, yes. But they don't automatically believe the perpetrator is the person the victim points to. There needs to be some evidence to convict. For example, witnesses, or possession of the stolen property.Calradianın Bilgesi said:
Someone victim to a theft can't simply point at someone and say "HE DID IT!" and they'll be thrown in prison.
We're talking about cases in which intercourse is certain(a transfer of property is certain), and the consent is contested. So your argument doesn't work.
You. Are. Shifting. A. Burden. Of. Proof. In. Criminal. Law.Jhessail said:
While pressumption of innocence is sometimes breached in civil law, it is a cornerstone of criminal law. See Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human rights or Article 6(2) of the European Convention of Human Rights. In a rape case, the conflict is between the alleged rapist and the state (the woman is not a party). The state is the stronger party. By agreeing to Calradiann's concept, you are putting the defense into a situation in which it is fighting the state on completely uneven grounds. Criminal law principles and rules have a lot of institutes that help the defendant - be it in dubio pro reo, the right not to testify, the right to lie or the right to be noticed of charges. If you shift the burden of proof from the state to the defendant, all of these become meaningless and useless. This is simply unfair and unjust.
All in all, the goal is simply not worth sacrificing the principle.
If this post was reworded a bit and used to accuse a feminist of not caring about the abrogation of women's rights in Saudi Arabia (or Iran, etc...), since she wasn't a part of such-and-such organization, would it be acceptable?Jhessail said:
What you're proposing would change the imprisonment of innocent people into a feature, rather than a bug.Jhessail said:
In fact, the United States already has two situations where "guilty until proven innocent" is already a thing:
1) Kangaroo courts on college campuses.
2) Civil asset forfeiture.
The first is a relatively recent "victory" for the 3rd wave feminists, and there are already a number of cases in which a male student's guilt is at least questionable (to everyone who isn't an ideologue, anyway). Here's one recent example. Then there was the case at Occidental college where a drunk freshman female was "all over" a drunk freshman male in his dorm room, right in front of her friends. The females all eventually leave, but the one girl returns later after sending back-and-forth text messages with the male, at one point asking him if he had condoms while she was on her way back to his dorm room. But apparently that's all irrelevant to any question of consent, since the man was kicked out of college.
There's another case where a woman was coming on to her roommate's boyfriend, in front of other people, before she took him back to her (and his girlfriend's) dorm room and performed oral sex on him. She followed this up by texting two other men; one was a booty call, and the other was her essentially admitting that she, "messed up" and, "wasn't just an innocent bystander" in the oral sex performed on her roommate's boyfriend (who was blackout drunk, by the way - not that men being too drunk to consent actually matters to feminists). She also complained to text-man#2 that text-man#1 was taking too long to engage in sex with her. But apparently none of that mattered when it came to her accusing her former-roommate's ex-boyfriend of rape, ~1.5 years after the fact, as he too was booted from his university.
--------
There are also lots of horror stories when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, where people have their lives destroyed because they're either unable to prove that the seized property wasn't the result of profiting from illegal activity, or because doing so would cost them more in legal fees than the property is worth (even if it's worth thousands of dollars). I can post some examples if someone is interested; people have lost everything from cash, to vehicles, electronics, furniture, and pretty much anything else you can imagine, all without being proven guilty of any crime whatsoever.
Now feminists are wanting to expand this doctrine into criminal courts where completely innocent people would be locked up for decades, and specifically singled out and targeted for assault, rape (ironic, right?), and murder by the other inmates. "Guilty until proven innocent" needs to be rolled back, not expanded.
One more question for those who support this mockery of justice: Why limit it to accusations of rape? There are plenty of instances where the police are "sure" that they've got the right person when it comes to cases of murder, robbery, arson, vandalism, etc...why shouldn't they be able to lock those people up, even if there's not enough evidence to "prove" their guilt? If your answer is going to come down to some feminist claptrap about "power imbalance" - just imagine that the victim is a female and the (alleged) perpetrator is a male.
1. Murder, arson, vandalism and many other crimes are assaults, they can't be consented to. You don't have to bother with proving non-existence of an abstract consent in the court.Wheem said:
2. The problem with rape is that you can't often prove it from mens rea, as in many cases men believe that what they do is within the limits of reasonable behaviour, whereas in arson you rarely doubt mens rea. And when you try to prove it from actus reus, marital rape or raping prostitutes become effectively legal as long as the perpetrator wasn't atrociously violent in crime.
If Austyboo and I start texting each other back and forth about how we're going to meet up and make a video of our backyard brawl, and become the next Kimbo Slice, should those messages be taken into account if I later claim that he assaulted me? If so, why? Most feminists are apparently fine with texts like, "I'm on my way, do you have condoms?" being dismissed, why shouldn't our fantasies of internet super-stardom be similarly ignored once an allegation has been made?Calradianın Bilgesi said:
Why should a man who's accused of rape have no realistic opportunity whatsoever to defend himself? After all, the alleged victim could always claim that the sex started off being consensual (thus explaining away all before-the-act evidence), but that she later withdrew consent while the act was in progress. If we must, by law, "listen and believe," then there's essentially nothing that a man can do to avoid a lengthy prison sentence.
So you don't think mens rea matters when it comes to allegations of rape? So...if a woman is "all over" a man; groping him, saying dirty things to him, and practically begging him to go home with her, but then later claims that she was "too drunk" to adequately make those decisions, the man is still just as guilty as if he'd dragged her, kicking and screaming, down a dark alley?Calradianın Bilgesi said:
mdk31 said:
Only one of those looks like an insult to me.
Something I came across the other day that I thought was interesting - in a nutshell, feminism is great for the economy.
I dunno, they all look pretty bad. I mean, insinuating I lacked balls, claiming that my "entire shtick" is to **** on women and feminism, claiming I pull sources from Breitbart of all places, and claiming I think all women are sly deceivers eager to cry wolf, are all pretty insulting and incorrect allegations.Moose! said:
Not really surprising, is it? I mean, increasing participation of half of the human species in economic activity necessarily would lead to an increase in economic activity.Moose! said:
Overt insult. There's plenty there that can be taken as an insult, but there's none of the usual Jhessisms. *shrug*
