NicholaiRen

If a woman is afraid of me, that'd be her problem. I haven't done anything to warrant that fear. Well. Besides killing a few people who were trying to kill me back in Cuba. But regardless, back to the point. Women shouldn't be afraid of all men simply because there are bad men, the same way we shouldn't fear all African Americans because there are a few bad African Americans. The woman in the song appears to have a few issues if she believes everything she is saying there. She can't live on the first floor of an apartment complex because the male rapist doesn't know how to use stairs? I mean, I've never heard of a woman who couldn't live on the first floor for the reasons she's stating. A lot of them seem a bit far out. Now, of course, there are other ones, like walking home late at night alone, however, that's something I wouldn't do either. I had a friend who got robbed once walking home late at night. It's basic logic that you take steps to avoid stuff like that. He went to the police and the police laughed at him, told him he shouldn't walk around late at night like an idiot. He didn't do it again and admits he made a dumb decision. Now, I'm not saying it's okay if a woman gets raped late at night walking home because it's her fault. That's stupid. What I am saying, is that this seems like a generally common thing you don't do. Additionally, other things she mentions. She can't walk to her car while talking on the phone? Does talking on the phone somehow increase the likelihood of getting raped? I feel like it'd do the opposite, or maybe I missed something here. Or opening her windows when at home alone. Do therapists just start flying in her window or something when she does that? Since when is that a thing? Mind you, <70% of rapes are done by someone the victim knows. I don't feel like the song accurately summed up the problems at hand. The biggest problem in terms of rape is women(And a small number of men) being raped by someone they know. I think one step is we should teach women how to identify bad relationships like abusive boyfriends, husbands, etc, and how to get out of relationships like that safely. This is something I don't understand. The heck do we do? Tell men "Don't rape, it's bad!"? I'm pretty sure men who rape people know it's wrong........ Just taking a guess though. In which case Kavanaugh had evidence as well. Surely Kavanaugh's testimony isn't equal to zero.

I do believe you probably sexually assaulted someone during your lifetime. Luckily for you, none of us will ever know because no proof is necessary on my part, as long as we're not in court. It's not like there is a social formality or anything where we expect evidence to be provided before we completely believe someone. Either way, I do agree with iNow. This debate has run its course and largely, all of us agree on the basics. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate, however, I will be moving on with this thread. Good luck guys.

They'd prevent a conviction, but not an investigation. Remember, this is a job interview, not a trial. This is something I didn't account for, honestly. However, now I'm curious as to why Ford doesn't want to press charges. Great. So you agree that it should be innocent until proven guilty and that we should not lean towards believing one person over another based off of Gender, Race, etc, regardless of what the accusation is?

When we advocated that an investigation must be made, you said this: That's how it's anti-due process. Because you're changing your position and pretending @J.C.MacSwell and I are fools to not notice it.

Reasonable thinking. But since you apparently believe you have a more logical reason as to why the Democrats didn't simply press charges and get their investigation, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I will continue to maintain this position because it makes the most reasonable sense. Edit: I've explained out all of my reasoning, I explained the end results, I explained the motivations, and when you apply it to the current situation not only does it fit perfectly but it predicted everything that they did. Rather then simply dismissing it as "conspiracy thinking" perhaps you should actually tell me where you think I'm wrong.

I asked him the same question 8 times, and he never answered and instead simply mitigated around it to complain about the Republican party. Hard to have a debate with someone who just ignores what you say. Well, when you don't press charges(Ford Fault) the constitution doesn't guarantee any form of investigation. Moreover, it's a protection of the people to not simply allow investigations into people without an official reason, because the government will abuse it to simply dig up dirt on people. Look what the Republicans did with Hillary. Millions of dollars wasted on fruitless investigations, simply trying to dig up dirt. It was ridiculous, and I'm not interested in seeing it happen again. If Ford pressed charges against Kavanaugh, she and the Democrats would have had their investigation. However, they didn't. So if they want to complain that they didn't get an investigation it will fall on deaf ears for me. The reason they didn't want an investigation is that they knew they wouldn't have found anything based on sexual assault. There was not enough evidence to even investigate for a week, all they could do is simply interview people for character witnesses. The Senate publicly interviewed Kavanaugh and Ford, the FBI didn't need to. Instead, the Democrats wanted an unofficial investigation into Kavanaugh. Not because they wanted the truth about sexual assault, but because they wanted to dig up dirt on him elsewhere. In the U.S, if you're in trial and an investigation is conducted, only things that are found relating to the incident can be used. Otherwise, again, government abuse of power. So all the other dirt Democrats could have found, much of which I suspect would have been speculative(like Fords), wouldn't have been usable. And the Democrats didn't need that. They needed an excuse to simply investigate Kavanaugh without restrictions to try and do everything they could to frame him as a terrible guy to the American public. If it were allowed for investigations to be done without due process, trust me, they'd never get to the end of it. Again, simply refer to Hillary, the Republicans always found a convenient "lead" at the end of it that required them to do more investigations, and they'd scream and cry like children if they didn't get it. That should be illegal in my opinion, but it isn't. The exact same thing would happen with the Democrats. They'd call for an open investigation, they'd find nothing, and then at the end, they've found a convenient "lead" that simply mandates they do another investigation into that charge. And so on and so on. It creates a never-ending cycle where the Democrats would never be happy with the results until they found something to completely destroy the man with, just as the Republicans were never happy with the results. Now, you can disregard my entire argument with "Democrats would never do this" however I assure you they would. Donald Trump, the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and the supreme court, are steeped in partisan politics that results in just this type of behavior. IT's more important than ever to look at both sides objectively. It allows you to realize the overall strategy easily when you're no longer with a particular side and looking for why they're right. When you look at it objectively and don't assume that one party is simply above doing something, everything they do makes almost perfectly logical sense.

I'm starting to think nothing we say will get through to you, because a general trend I see in your posts in this thread, and in others, is that you despise the Republican party and defend the Democratic Party tooth and nail. And with this situation, which includes both the Democratic party and the Republican party, you're going to take the side of the Democrats and refuse to move, regardless of any information, evidence, logic, or examples we can provide.

Hey, if you're gonna tell me she knew where, then you're gonna have to tell me where. "Somewhere" is a very vague term, even given the context. If you're also gonna tell me when you need to give me at the very least a time frame that's less then 15 days so we can reasonably investigate. "1982" is very vague in terms of it.

So the location is...... "Somewhere between my house and the Country Club". So she doesn't know where. So the date was....... no idea. 1982 isn't exactly a date. That's odd. Earlier she said: "The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and 4 others" Let's see. Brett, Mark, P.J, one other boy, and Leland(Who by the way denies this), that makes 6. So, who was there? And if perhaps you're saying she just forgot about Leland, there was another time when the gathering included just three boys and one girl. Whereas now there's another guy.

So I take it you retract your previous statement that what I said was untrue. And instead, you're just gonna mock me.

This diamond from the article: "It’s true that Ford can’t recall important details about place and time. It’s true that she can’t recall how she got to the house or how she left." Also, the article doesn't touch on who. And it doesn't matter who you tell me went there, I have two quotes from Ford which contradict each other so we can play ring around the Rosie until the chickens come in.

I just read it. None of the questions were answered. However, I challenge you to point out the answers if I missed them(Trust me, they're not in the article you provided). I thought you were paying attention to more than just the propaganda. My apologies for overestimating you. Won't happen again.

Where did it take place? When did it take place? Who was there, and if so, why did you pick that story?

Damned if I do ya, damned if I don't. I don't pretend to know the reason he didn't want an investigation, however, I suspect it has something to do with his experience as a lawyer and knowing that just because you're not hiding what everyone thinks you are, there could easily be other things you don't want to them to see. Edit: Or, as @J.C.MacSwell just made me think, there is another possible reason. Ford didn't provide any real evidence for what happened. No idea where no idea when not even an idea of who. She doesn't remember where it took place, or when. She remembers who was there, except first it was 4 guys, all named, then it was 3 guys and 1 girl, all named, and then it was 4 guys again, all named, but different from her original story. So they don't know. If he tried to launch an investigation, he as a lawyer himself would know it'd probably turn up inconclusive. What he also knew, is that the Democratic Party would try to use that investigation as an opportunity to scourge for any other possible dirt on him they could find to delay the process longer.

You try sitting in front of the nation, on TV, as someone accuses you of being a monster with no evidence presented, while you also realize that because of this half the nation hates your guts, you'll never be looked at the same and that potentially, what you've worked your entire life to achieve could be about to disappear. Men shouldn't cry, agreed. It shows a lack of strength as most news companies are pointing out, and a lot are comparing him to a blubbering baby girl for it. But under that? Look at it two ways. Either he is innocent or he is guilty. If he was innocent, can you blame him?

I can do this all day. And night. And week. I will get an answer from you.

I'm pretty sure that's why he mentioned truth serum and lie detectors. Maybe I'm wrong though. Otherwise, this makes no sense. Huh. That's odd. I could have sworn you said we should believe women because that's the statistical likely hood on who is telling the truth. You know, when you kept repeating that part about us being scared of innocent men being convicted when @J.C.MacSwell and I kept saying we can't abandon "Innocent until proven guilty". For the final time: What do you want us to do about the innocent until proven guilty part? Yes. You've repeatedly said the same thing over and over and over and over again. But what do you specifically want to do in regards to "innocent until proven guilty"? You haven't given a straight answer yet and I'm starting to think you just want to complain that life isn't perfect when it comes to these things. If you can't give any better idea of what to do, then you really have no reason to complain about those who support this idea.

I suspect the Republican party gained massive ground during the Kavanaugh trials. This is something that not only do I agree with, but I'd openly advocate doing. This is where I'd disagree with you, however, only slightly. I think the default assumption should still be innocent until proven guilty, and I think I and others have made the argument already why we believe this. If the assumption is leaning towards innocent at any given time, then that's biased in my opinion. It should be neutral, however, unless evidence is provided, presumed innocent.

That, would be Ford's fault. A simple solution to having gotten a full FBI investigation that wasn't politically filtered would have simply involved pressing criminal charges. But that would have required a trial. And in our Anti-woman legal system, that would have required she proved that Kavanaugh attempted to rape her. Which is just such a disappointment to our society that we're not progressive enough to no longer require evidence to convict someone. Instead, we should return to times like Castro's or medieval times, where if you were accused you were not given the right to a fair trial, you were given the right to claim your innocence from prison to deaf ears. Now, if you disagree with the statement above, let me know. However, at the moment you are avoiding answering @J.C.MacSwell's and I's question, so I'm assuming you think it should be guilty until proven innocent.

No. We are saying that at some point we must make a choice. Either innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent. There is no middle ground.

So what are you advocating we do? Not requiring people to have evidence a crime was committed before being convicted? Plain and simple, this is what all this debate boils down to, and it's a yes or no question. Yes or no? Mind you, the discussion is no longer "Giving the benfiet of the doubt" or "leaning towards believing women" you are seemingly saying: "Believe women period." because statistics back them up.

I've bolded them in this quote. They weren't originally bolded. I'm saying that now so you don't think I'm changing the post. I think this is where we fundamentally disagree. I will not give up my viewpoint of "Innocent until proven guilty". I'd rather see 100 guilty men go free then 1 innocent man go to jail. You may say that sounds insane, but it's because you have to apply it to more than just this issue. If you begin to allow innocent men to be sent to jail, it can be taken advantage of. Not only can it be taken advantage of, it will be taken advantage of. Politicians, Businessmen, Criminals, and more will use this as a weapon. I have seen it. In Cuba, when a government official accuses you of something, you're done. You may believe this is a red herring, but it's the biggest reason why we cannot falter on "Innocent until proven guilty". People will take advantage over it. And when you give ground in one area of the law, you can and will be forced to give ground in other areas. That is the way it works.

You can't. Which was my point. The statistics the graphic was based on, were impossible to obtain. Yet, they were displayed as absolute truth. Now, I understand that for purposes of the graphic they can do that, however assuming 100% instead of something in the middle, like 50%, is another thing that irked me. And it's one thing to assume 100% over 50% in something that will change the graphic by like 1 guy. But when it multiplies the number of black figures in the bottom by 15, it's a rather large difference. And when all the little assumptions and rounding you(By you I mean the graphic makers) made means that graphic is off my a multiple of 35, I consider it misleading.

I'm not searching for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted. And I know it's not specific individuals we are talking about. But it's also not statistics. Because statistics means looking for actual statistical data points, not assuming them. The statistics for the number of people declared not guilty and who are actually innocent wasn't included, and that is extremely misleading on their part. I'm not trying to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted, but it's not going to help anyone to make up statistics. Edit: Just because I question statistics regarding rape doesn't mean I'm trying to search for a way to discredit the fact that women are sexually assaulted and that the crime is underreported. That's a logical fallacy that just because I don't immediately accept the statistics associated with a position(For reasons such as they're wrong) I'm sexist. When the 1/3 statistic was widespread, I didn't believe it. However, if I suggested that no, 1/3 women aren't raped, I'm automatically considered a sexist who is trying to discredit women.