tim.tdj

You are reading between the lines where there is nothing to read. It is up to each individual to decide which is worse.

I am not ignoring that today's courts don't start from the middle position. I don't know why you think I am. I am not opposed to allegations being investigated and I think it is bad that some allegations which should be investigated are not. I just think that the investigations should be as fair and intelligent as possible. False accusations of all types, sexual or otherwise, worry me. It does not matter what type it is. I am not comfortable with any of what you are describing either. I think that ideally, only evidence from the actual alleged event should matter.

I pray that you never will be.

If you are ever falsely accused of a terrible crime (I very much hope you never will be), it will suddenly matter to you a lot that your trial is a fair as possible. It doesn't matter that you are just one person.

I am entirely aware of the unfairness on both sides of this issue. That is why I think the middle position is so important. The middle position is the most fair position. I don't understand how this is not completely obvious.

You seem to very much underestimate what I mean by fair justice. Fair justice is a huge concept which should not be sniffed at like that.

You are making assumptions about the sort of man I am. I do not want to squash any movement that genuinely wants fair justice. I actually think that, by-and-large, the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements are very heroic and much needed movements. It is just that there are some not-so-good elements within those movements. Much the same way as there are bad apples in every barrel.

I think that instead of saying "believe women", it is better to say "don't disbelieve women". The difference may seem subtle but if you understand the difference, you will know how important it is. Obviously what a woman wears etc is no defense in a case of rape or sexual assault and only one expression of reluctance from a woman should be enough to tell a man to stop. Obviously the words "woman" and "man" in what I am saying can be swapped and it will be equally true. When you say, "The problem NOW is that many cases don't start from "the middle", or a neutral clean slate.", I totally agree with you and that is the problem that I have tried to point out.

You have been asking me to prove my assertions. How about I ask you to prove the allegations you have made against me?

It seems that some of the mistakes are because of people taking extreme positions. It seems that your faith in the criminal justice system is unshakable which is either admirable or foolish.

A few examples of where the criminal justice system has gone wrong have already been provided in this thread. One incidence is one too many.

Before you have heard or seen any evidence whatsoever, the best position is definitely always the middle. Once you start hearing and seeing the evidence, you should apply as much caution and intelligence as possible to deciding how to interpret the evidence you are hearing and seeing (making sure you are not being mislead) and allow your considered interpretation to guide you. Only when this careful process takes you beyond any reasonable doubt can you come to any conclusion.

I am entirely in favour of any allegation being properly investigated in an impartial intelligent manner. I am as horrified as you are when victims are simply ignored. The problem with the police and criminal justice system is that all too often the people involved take extreme positions on one side or the other. I very strongly believe that the only acceptable position to start from is the middle.

It seems that you and I are both in agreement that what happens in a court of law in reality is not what should happen in a court of law. I think that a much higher bar of intelligence should be set. The metaphorical pendulum should stop swinging from side to side and settle in the middle.

I have nothing whatsoever against a genuine victim getting justice provided it is the result of an impartial cautious intelligent investigation where no presumptions whatsoever are made.

It is not about protecting men. It is about protecting the innocent. What is wrong with that?

I would like to make what I think is a very important clarification here: I think that if an alleged victim is not 100% believed, this does not necessarily mean that they are being disbelieved. There is a seemingly subtle but very important difference here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

Hi Everyone I have seen in the media that some people are saying that alleged victims of sexual abuse and rape should be automatically 100% believed without doubt. The logical conclusion of this position is that the accused would be assumed guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. Is this an acceptable position? As I see it, your position on this debate ought logically to align with the choice you make in the very tough poll I am posting here. Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim

Hi John Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim

Hi Everyone Does anyone know the highest temperature you can cook at before any amino acids start to get damaged? Are any of the amino acids in a boiled egg damaged? (Presumably the boiling takes place at 100C) Thank you very much Kind reagrds Tim

Hi John Thank you very much for your reply and for the link. After looking at the link you provided it seems that the correct terminology for what I was calling the "glycemic response" is actually "Glycemic Load" which, if I am interpreting it correctly, is is equal to the GI multiplied by the fraction of digestible carbohydrate in the food being measured. This is what I did in order to get the value of 13.6. Is this correct? Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim

Hi John Thank you very much for your reply. Firstly. please can you provide a link to the wiki page you are referring to. What you seem to be saying is that the Glycemic Index is a measure of the glycemic response only of the carbohydrate in the food being measured with the rest of the constituents of the food being ignored. This would mean that if the GI of coconut flour is 50, the glycemic response of 100g of coconut flour would be 50*0.272 which is 13.6. Am I correct? Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim

Hi Everyone I have just seen something which doesn't make sense to me. According to the following article, coconut flour has a Glycemic Index of 50: https://www.upgrademyfood.com/which-flour-is-best-for-a-diabetic/ However, according to the nutrition information on a packet of coconut flour I have purchased, there are only 27.2g of non-fibre carbohydrates per 100g of the flour. Have the authors of the above article made a mistake? How can the Glycemic Index be higher than the amount in grams of non-fibre carbohydrates per 100g of the coconut flour? Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim

Hi CharonY Thank you very much for this information. Kind regards Tim Hi Everyone I have just seen something which doesn't make sense to me. According to the following article, coconut flour has a Glycemic Index of 50: https://www.upgrademyfood.com/which-flour-is-best-for-a-diabetic/ However, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, there are only 27.2g of digestible carbohydrates in the coconut flour I purchased. Have the authors of the above article made a mistake? How can the Glycemic Index be higher than the amount in grams of digestible carbohydrates in 100g of the coconut flour? Thank you very much. Kind regards Tim