NicholaiRen

Son, if you are naive enough to not realize that Ford is being used by politicians then there is nothing I can say to help you. Which doesn't mean we should do it even more. Yes, women shouldn't be raped. Yes, we should make it easier for them to come forward. Yes, we should investigate their claims. Yes, too few women come forward. Yes, the overwhelming majority of them are telling the truth. What is your point? I'm not advocating that women don't report. I'm not advocating we don't believe them. I'm not advocating men should be given special preference. I'm not advocating it's women's fault. I'm not advocating we shouldn't make it easier for them to come forward. I'm not advocating anything against women. The system favors rapist because that is due process. Unless you can prove that someone is guilty, we should not throw them in jail. I'm sorry to the women who are hurt by this, but I absolutely refuse to compromise on that idea. Everybody, and when I say everybody I include men, have a right to a fair trial. If you cannot prove they did something wrong, they should not go to jail. Perhaps you disagree with this, but I guarantee you, when you, or your best friend, is arrested and imprisoned without proof or a fair trial, you will change your mind permanently.

I'm not willing to believe them at all without any evidence or proof. I'm willing to say we should investigate them, however, if the investigation turns up nothing, I'm not going to say the investigation was flawed unless I have reason to believe the investigation is flawed. Additionally, I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Which means the burden of proof to prove that one is innocent is nonexistent unless the accuser has evidence against them. It seems simple to me. That's how the system works. That's how it should work. On a side note, the Kavanaugh situation sickened me. A two party system is a bad way to go because this is the type of behavior that results from "Us vs them". It's not a red herring. A red herring is a misleading or distracting argument made that gets away from the main point. You specifically advocated that we give one person more credit than another because of biological factors when you said this: You support that idea with "history and the vast scale of the problem". The problem with that is you're willing to apply it to this situation and not others. A lot more African Americans have been jailed then Caucasians for the same crimes. Using your idea of justice, we should automatically lean towards believing Caucasians because of historical factors, which can obviously be biased. It's not a red herring, it's a comparison. If you can't see the logical steps I took to get here, please ask me to clarify further. Hence why I specifically used the term "Not guilty" and not "innocent", and when I applied the not guilty assumption, I used a 50% statistic. My problem was that they assumed that everybody who was declared not guilty was still guilty, which they had no possible way of knowing or even begin to guess at.

Regardless of the aforementioned dead animal, continuing on...... I feel as though the cigarette problem doesn't really fully encompass the problem with this. The cigarette doesn't care if it's falsely accused of lung cancer. It has no feelings. Rather, let's look at race. There are far more African Americans in prison then Caucasians. So, if I were to simply assume any given African American is more likely to go to jail for a crime, I think that'd be rather racist of me. Perhaps in my old age, these things surpass my understanding, but I believe that is the type of thing the younger generation is currently fighting: Assuming something about an individual because of what their race or gender is. If I were to say I gave more credit to a white man then a black man, I'd be racist. So if you were to say you give more credit to a man then a woman, you'd be sexist. The same logic applies: If you were to give more credit to a woman then a man, you'd be sexist.

I have read the thread. I see nothing relating to a dead horse and Kavanaugh.............. You may have made a typo or maybe something new has entered the news I haven't seen yet.

What dead horse??????

I suspect he is, however glaringly obvious seems like an overstatement. Could you share with me the information that makes you so sure?

This is true, however "Nip" feels like a rather weak word. The original graphic had 2 falsely accused, out of a thousand. It should have had, at a minimum, 75. I am, and allow me to clarify. I see no reason why being a female means your opinion should matter more, and I believe you agree with me. Therefore, I'm assuming the reason you would believe your daughter if she said she was sexually assaulted is that she's your daughter, not that she's simply a female. That's what I was trying to convey in my post, my apologies for not being clear about that.

If they faced trial, and they weren't convicted(declared not guilty), why are they still considered rapists according to this graphic? That seems counter-intuitive to me. What information does she have to factually say that only 2 of the 20 individuals who went to trial and were declared not guilty were actually not guilty? How does she know that every one of the rapes that were reported actually happened if they never went to trial to prove that they did? The information provided in this graphic is impossible to know.............. But I suspect you're busy, and coming up with answers to these questions is probably hard for you. I'm retired, so I got plenty of time. So I decided to research the answers to these questions because I was genuinely curious. "If they faced trial, and they weren't convicted(declared not guilty), why are they still considered rapists according to this graphic?" Answer: They simply used statistics of the number of men who went to trial, versus, the number of men who were convicted. The reason they aren't labeled falsely accused is that they weren't able to prove that they are innocent, only that the accusers couldn't actually prove they were guilty, so for the purposes of the graphic, they assumed that anyone who went to trial and couldn't prove they were innocent, are guilty. "What information does she have to factually say that only 2 of the 20 individuals who went to trial and were declared not guilty were actually not guilty?" Answer: None. For the purpose of the graphic, they simply assumed. "How does she know that every one of the rapes that were reported actually happened if they never went to trial to prove that they did?" Answer: None. For the purpose of the graphic, they simply assumed. Yes, and I wish that those who were declared not guilty in a trial weren't considered to be rapists for no reason other than to make a graphic look more extreme. Additionally, numbers were rounded to make the statistic look more extreme. The sources that are listed say 51% - 95% of rapes are never reported. For the graphic, they assumed 10% are never reported. So they've assumed about 17% lower than the average their own sources give. If that's how they want to do it, that's fine. I wish I could check the sources, but all of the links to her sources are dead ends. So, additionally, their sources list false accusations from 2% - 8%. So the average would be 5% are false accusations. Except they rounded lower again, this time to 2%. If you were to recreate this statistic again, with accurate figures, assuming the following things: The average rate of rapes being reported is only 27%. The average rate of false accusations is 5%. Only 50% of those who were declared not guilty were actually not guilty. Assuming 95% of those who were reported but didn't actually go to trial are guilty(Based on the average falsely accused rate.) Assuming 95% of those which weren't reported(Remember, the amount which isn't reported is based on polling. So assuming polling is just as truthful as reporting(That's a leap), it'd be 5% as well) Instead of 2 black figures, you'd have 75. Again, this is assuming 50% of those who were declared not guilty, are actually guilty. 1000 rapists: 730 not reported. 36 Innocent 694 guilty 270 reported 90 Trial 30 Jailed 30 guilty 60 Declared not guilty 30 innocent 30 guilty 180 Not on trial 9 Innocent 171 guilty If one of your sons was accused of rape, and he came to you and said he didn't do it, would you give him the benefit of the doubt? If you're not gonna give someone who your daughter accuses of raping her the benefit of the doubt, then it depends on two things. Either that her being your daughter matters, or her being a female matters. I see no reason why just being a female means your opinion should matter more. I can see why her being your daughter would matter more, but if you're trying to look at everyone as your family, then you can't do that only for the accuser. In which case, it's daughter versus son by your own logic. And if that's the case, you now have to depend on evidence to decide who is telling the truth.....

@swansont @Ten oz Perhaps you guys should take a step back and review these statements for a little bit. Zero weight should be given to someone saying they are innocent. Let's say X accuses Z of a crime. You're giving Z zero weight unless they can prove they are innocent(You didn't technically specify this, but I'm taking the liberty to assume it's in there). If that were the case, X can simply come up with a crime to accuse Z of that Z cannot possibly defend against. So, let's say X was to come up with an ideal accusation. Something that happened decades ago Something that Z will be devastated over unless he can prove himself innocent. Something that Z cannot prove himself innocent of. Well, now you're faced with a problem. How do you come up with something that Z can't prove himself innocent of? Typically evidence is based on 4 things: Who, What, Where, When. If you cannot prove to me at least 3/4 of those things, I don't personally consider it evidence. "Why" doesn't matter. Simply saying someone had the motivation to do something isn't evidence. "How" is typically included in the general overview of those 4. So X, in coming up with the crime, accuses Z: Z(Who) almost raped me decades ago(What). I don't know when(When). I don't know (Where). Z is now in the position of defending himself. He can't prove himself innocent by saying where he was because they don't know where(Where). He can't prove himself innocent by saying what he was doing at the time because they don't know when.(When). He can't prove himself innocent of what happened because the thing that happened yields no physical evidence(What). The only evidence he can tackle is who. However, the only way he can do that is by saying: I didn't do it. If you give Z zero weight unless he can prove himself innocent, you're guaranteeing there is no way he can defend himself. When I was a young man I read a book once called "To Kill a Mockingbird". I know a lot of you younger generations no longer read this book because it's either considered boring, or it's considered racist by schools. However, I highly encourage you to read this. It's a truly amazing story. Inside the book, you see what happens when the burden of proof is laid at the feet of the accused, and not the accuser. You can tell all you like that simply requiring the innocent to prove their innocence against accusations won't hurt anyone, but it can. And it will. Now taking this statement into consideration, it becomes all too much like "To Kill a Mockingbird". Now you're saying Z, because he belongs to a certain group, is held to a different standard than another. Inside of "To Kill a Mockingbird" the man who is accused of sexual assault belongs to one such group, and as a result, he's required to provide evidence, while his accuser, is not. An innocent man is executed because of it. What you are saying is that those who don't agree with your political views should be required to provide evidence simply to prove themselves innocent, while those who agree with your views are not required to, because their word should be taken. This reminds me of my time in Cuba, literally decades ago, where my friend was arrested based on an accusation by a communist. (In Cuba, if you belong to the communist party you are a card carrying communist.) My friend was not a card carrying communist, and as such, the burden of proof was thrown at his feet to say he was innocent. He couldn't do such a thing, and he went to prison as a result. I left Cuba years later, and I have no desire to return to an area where political views decide your innocence. So please @Ten oz, do not advocate that America become such a place. I, and millions of others, suffered under what you're proposing. And I know you're not doing it out of hate, but sometimes even the best of intentions can lead to the worst of situations. You guys are both intelligent young men. Use the past and look into history. Learn from my generation's mistakes. The world cannot afford to make the same ones again.