B Kavanough and MeToo

[mistermack]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She was 15 at the time. You are asking a lot of any victim, never mind a 15 year old one.

Ideally they go to the police immediately, whether 5, 15, or 50, but you cannot blame them for staying silent.

Ideally, they could be made to feel comfortable and safe to do so, to come forward. I am sure that taking away the rights of the accused is not the way to attempt to help them do so. Maybe it simply cannot be made fair.

 But at least we can avoid blaming the victim.

Firstly, I've made it clear that I don't believe Ford is a victim. Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar.

As far as genuine victims go, I'm not blaming them, I'm pointing out the real-life consequences of not reporting rapes, or delaying reporting for long periods. Like it or not, a rape not reported often means another and another. I've seen enough FBI files programs, and the like, to spot the pattern. A woman gets attacked, doesn't report it, and ends up feeling terribly guilty when more women get raped and murdered, which she could have helped to prevent. But it's too late then. 

This is what wiki says about the Yorkshire Ripper's very first attack :

"Sutcliffe said he had followed a prostitute into a garage and hit her over the head with a stone in a sock. According to his statement, Sutcliffe said, "I got out of the car, went across the road and hit her. The force of the impact tore the toe off the sock and whatever was in it came out. I went back to the car and got in it".^[9]

 

Police visited his home the next day, as the woman he had attacked had noted Birdsall's vehicle registration plate. Sutcliffe admitted he had hit her, but claimed it was with his hand. The police told him he was "very lucky" as the woman did not want anything more to do with the incident – she was a known prostitute, and her husband was serving a jail term for assault.^[9]"

Sutcliff was eventually convicted of murdering 13 women, and attempting to murder 7 others. 

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

She was 15 at the time. You are asking a lot of any victim, never mind a 15 year old one.

I'm saying that the MESSAGE should be to report it immediately. And all of the downside of not reporting it should be made abundantly clear to all. It's up to the individual what they actually do. But people should be aware of the consequences of not reporting. Not live in this imaginary ideal world where the world turns cartwheels at every accusation that comes 36 years too late. People who are not in the limelight will get a nasty shock, if they think that they can do what Ford did, and get taken seriously. 

Professor Ford took 36 years, and then imagined that the world would treat her as if she was reporting something from last week. She seems to EXPECT that the world should drop everything, and treat her allegations as true. You can't have it both ways. Report it and get taken seriously. Don't report it, and trot it out just before your target is up for the big job, and you risk NOT being believed. As I said before, actions have consequences. Her actions led to the present consequences.

In the tiny chance that she IS telling the truth, if she had followed what I'm advising 36 years ago, he probably wouldn't be getting the job now. So if it's all true, she's effectively helped him on his way.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Taking into account the timing, delay and obvious motive of her accusation, to me she's not a victim, she's a liar.

There is absolutely no reason at all for thinking that delaying this, or going public when she thinks an obvious wrong is happening, is any reason to think she is lying. 

That is a really offensive statement and one that shows you are totally detached from the real world. Or at least the one that most women live in.

 

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

I've seen enough FBI files programs, and the like, to spot the pattern.

Oh, yeah, watching TV makes you a real expert.

[mistermack]

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is absolutely no reason at all for thinking that delaying this, or going public when she thinks an obvious wrong is happening, is any reason to think she is lying. 

That is a really offensive statement and one that shows you are totally detached from the real world. Or at least the one that most women live in.

Obviously in the lovely sweet "real world" that you live in, women never make false claims of sexual assault, and dirty tricks are never used in politics. It must be great in there. 

Back in the real world, one of the two is lying. That seems to have escaped your notice. Either she's lying or he is. So your above statement is ridiculous. You're effectively saying it's really offensive to prefer his version. 

I find it ludicrous, the way the senators are performing cartwheels so as not to actually say she's lying. "I'm sure something happened to Prof. Ford, but don't believe it was Kavanaugh".  The world has gone PC bonkers. They are all VOTING that she's a liar, but they're not prepared to say it out loud.  It's like the Emperor's suit of clothes.

[rangerx]

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

 The world has gone PC bonkers. They are all VOTING that she's a liar, but they're not prepared to say it out loud.  It's like the Emperor's suit of clothes.

No. They admit she's telling the truth. They just don't care. They are voting to advance an agenda, victims be damned.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Did Hirono's unqualified "believe all sexual assault accusers" backfire on the Democrats?

Titled "Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh":

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did Hirono's unqualified "believe all sexual assault accusers" backfire on the Democrats?

Titled "Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh":

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html

Backfire? This question sort of assumes Ford was part of a Democratic strategy. Republicans have 51 votes in the Senate. There was never anything Democrats could do to stop Kavanaugh. Republicans could have voted Kavanaugh in weeks ago if they chose to. Your question doesn't make any sense. There could have been video of Kavanaugh assualt a woman and Republicans still could have confirmed him. 

[rangerx]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Did Hirono's unqualified "believe all sexual assault accusers" backfire on the Democrats?

Titled "Democrats say Avenatti undercut their case against Kavanaugh":

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/democrats-avenatti-swetnick-accusation/index.html

Anything that happened after the fact is beside the point.

What matters is the assault and the indifference to it.
 

As far as the OP goes, this one falls flat.

It's glaringly obvious, that #metoo is not weaponized.

If anything #sowhat seems to be the end result.

And that, is for shame.

[iNow]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

Obviously in the lovely sweet "real world" that you live in, women never make false claims of sexual assault

Yes, and we ALL wish those tiny two figures on the bottom right of this graphic were both tinier and fewer, but that doesn’t mean we should lose sight of the broader trend that women lie about this subject FAR less often than the men who hurt them.

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Backfire? This question sort of assumes Ford was part of a Democratic strategy. Republicans have 51 votes in the Senate. There was never anything Democrats could do to stop Kavanaugh. Republicans could have voted Kavanaugh in weeks ago if they chose to. Your question doesn't make any sense. There could have been video of Kavanaugh assualt a woman and Republicans still could have confirmed him. 

Yes backfire. The question actually assumes Ford deserved more credence (the Democrat position), but it got diluted by a seemingly much less credible accusation. Senator Collins called Swetnick's allegations  "outlandish" where she considered Ford "compelling".

Swetnick's allegation demonstrated the flaw in the unqualified "believe the accuser" claim (I am calling it unqualified rather than the context I considered obvious in deference to Swansont). Keep in mind it is the Democrats that are now lamenting the Avanetti/Swetnick allegations (see the link). 

 

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes, and we ALL wish those tiny two figures on the bottom right of this graphic were both tinier and fewer, but that doesn’t mean we should lose sight of the broader trend that women lie about this subject FAR less often than the men who hurt them.

 

 

The sad part is that the full block is not even the tip of the iceberg if you are looking at attempted rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment...

...never mind the daily fear of all of the above. (based on the rapes represented by the block)

Falsely accused could be as low as you suggest, but could also be 4 or 5 times higher (that is generally considered the range). The statistics cannot be applied in a specific case. Kavanaugh either attempted to rape her or he didn't.

But what can be done? How many more falsely accused would you like to encourage by artificially making these statistics more balanced, by taking away the rights of the accused? You cannot make it fair. There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim.

Edited October 6, 2018 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There is nothing you can do to make it fair for the victim.

I disagree. It’s starts with each and every one of us noting how pervasive this is for women and how long it’s persisted then responding accordingly. 

We’re not powerless to make this situation better or women safer. We will only be powerless if such defeatist attitudes continue to be held by otherwise intelligent folks like you. 

 

EDIT: Fixed a flawed autocorrect change in last paragraph 

Edited October 7, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

I disagree. It’s starts with each and every one of us noting how pervasive this is for women and how long it’s persisted. 

You have to look at each case on its merits; not let the broader picture influence your position on it. This particular case has been highly confounded by political motives on all sides, so is really an exception.

Edited October 6, 2018 by StringJunky

[iNow]

If one of my daughters (god forbid) comes to me saying a man has hurt her, my inclination will NOT be to give him the benefit of the doubt. I simply approach the other women in the world as if they’re also my family. I think that’s a good place to start, but YMMV

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

If one of my daughters (god forbid) comes to me saying a man has hurt her, my inclination will NOT be to give him the benefit of the doubt. I simply approach the other women in the world as if they’re also my family. I think that’s a good place to start, but YMMV

With your own family, you will take that risk because you have faith in them.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

With your own family, you will take that risk because you have faith in them.

The larger idea I tried to introduce is that all of humanity is part of our family if we’re thinking about it the right way, but that’s likely best explored in a different thread. 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

The larger idea I tried to introduce is that all of humanity is part of our family if we’re thinking about it the right way, but that’s likely best explored in a different thread. 

Yeah, this is another thread but, hopefully, it will suffice for me to say that life has taught me that this is a hopeless dream and most people are 'islands', out for themselves. I started life loving the world.... my approach is based much more on the way the world is and not as might it be.

[MigL]

A lot of developments in the day I've been away...

But maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am with the American Judicial and Political system can explain something to me.
If C Blasey Ford has B Kavanough charged with attempted rape, she makes her case by providing the evidence/facts, and he is convicted ( possibly doing jail time ), can he keep his Supreme Court seat ?
I would think he is at least disbarred, meaning he can no longer be a judge.

So, why are the allegations not being brought to the criminal justice system ?

Not doing so gives the impression that, now that the nomination has been confirmed, there is no chance ( or evidence ? ) of securing a conviction against B Kavanaugh.
Her name and story has already been put through the public domain grinder ( against her wishes ), and people who believe her should be urging her to file criminal charges.

Edit:
Sorry Ten oz, just saw your request while I was reading back...
I did not say planted evidence, which as you say, is a criminal act.
I suggested she 'planted disinformation', something most politicians are very good at.
 

Edited October 7, 2018 by MigL

[NicholaiRen]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

 

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.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Yes, and we ALL wish those tiny two figures on the bottom right of this graphic were both tinier and fewer, but that doesn’t mean we should lose sight of the broader trend that women lie about this subject FAR less often than the men who hurt them.

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.

1. 1000 rapists:
   1. 730 not reported.
      1. 36 Innocent
      2. 694 guilty
   2. 270 reported
      1. 90 Trial
         1. 30 Jailed
            1. 30 guilty
         2. 60 Declared not guilty
            1. 30 innocent
            2. 30 guilty
      2. 180 Not on trial
         1. 9 Innocent
         2. 171 guilty

 

36 minutes ago, iNow said:

The larger idea I tried to introduce is that all of humanity is part of our family if we’re thinking about it the right way, but that’s likely best explored in a different thread. 

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.....

Edited October 7, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[iNow]

You can nip at the numbers around the margins, but the core of my point remains unchallenged. 

Too many women have been sexually assaulted. Too many men get away with it. Even when women report, it rarely goes anywhere. Even more rare are false reports against men. End program. 

21 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

I see no reason why just being a female means your opinion should matter more.

Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept of a strawman?

[NicholaiRen]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

You can nip at the numbers around the margins, but the core of my point remains unchallenged. 

Too many women have been sexually assaulted. Too many men get away with it. Even when women report, it rarely goes anywhere. Even more rare are false reports against men. End program. 

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.

 

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you’re familiar with the concept of a strawman?

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.

Edited October 7, 2018 by NicholaiRen

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

A lot of developments in the day I've been away...

But maybe someone more knowledgeable than I am with the American Judicial and Political system can explain something to me.
If C Blasey Ford has B Kavanough charged with attempted rape, she makes her case by providing the evidence/facts, and he is convicted ( possibly doing jail time ), can he keep his Supreme Court seat ?
I would think he is at least disbarred, meaning he can no longer be a judge.

So, why are the allegations not being brought to the criminal justice system ?

Not doing so gives the impression that, now that the nomination has been confirmed, there is no chance ( or evidence ? ) of securing a conviction against B Kavanaugh.
Her name and story has already been put through the public domain grinder ( against her wishes ), and people who believe her should be urging her to file criminal charges.

It's the same for the president. It takes a 2/3 majority. If he were to be convicted, he could be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. One is not automatic of the other though. If convicted, he will go to jail. I would think that is disqualifying in itself. He'd likely resign.

The criminal justice system doesn't investigate if no one is mandated to do so.

Aside from the claim of a sex issue, it's evolved into a perjury case. The same thing that happened to Clinton. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander IMHO.

Elections have consequences and rest assured if the Dems take enough seats, Kavanaugh will face a few hearings and investigations. He will be Benghazi'd in the meanwhile.

Meanwhile, the Meuller stuff isn't released yet and one would have to live under a rock to think nothing will come of it. Not that it matters, especially since they stacked the court with activist judges (to use a conservative talking point) to exonerate corruption by Trump and his cronies.

Kavanuagh's first judgement will be hamstringing referral to the states, so they can't prosecute Trump.

Blowing up the nuclear option was a democrat thing, and this confirmation is a consequence of that. Other than a few Killary pizzagters out there, the Republican assault on her has pretty much fizzled out as a nothing burger if not a vicious character assassination. If democrats take the house and senate, hang on, it's going to be a rough ride. It's glaringly obvious Kavanaugh is a perjurer, if not a sexual predator.

Again, reaping what they sow.

 

[NicholaiRen]

8 minutes ago, rangerx said:

It's glaringly obvious Kavanaugh is a perjurer, if not a sexual predator.

I suspect he is, however glaringly obvious seems like an overstatement.

Could you share with me the information that makes you so sure?

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, NicholaiRen said:

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.

You assume wrong. You know what they say about assuming... making asses and whatnot. 

A bigger and better reason to lean toward believing the women who come forward with such claims is history and the vast scale of the problem. It’s a bit like blaming cigarettes for lung cancer... sure, maybe something else caused the cancer, but it was probably the cigarettes if you were a smoker. Same with sexual assault and harassment. Sure, maybe the female is lying, but most times she’s not.

It’s truly pervasive and nearly every single woman we all know has a personal story of a time when a male was being inappropriate and/or intimidating and/or downright violent.  Some stories are more traumatic than others, but extremely few are fictional.

As I’ve already clarified (more than once) in this thread, we agree that it’s inappropriate to allow innocent people to be punished. We agree that investigation is warranted and allegations alone are generally not enough.

The issue is not that some minority of women may tell falsehoods. The issue is that for too long we’ve ignored those with credible and valid claims and we’ve overlooked and ignored the obviously guilty. This is a long overdue correction to a problematic historical and all too common trend. 

Regardless, we’re here now simply rehashing points already repeatedly covered by multiple people in this very thread. Feel free to keep beating this dead horse if you wish, but I’m not interested this evening in further brutalizing the aforementioned deceased equine. 

Edited October 7, 2018 by iNow

[NicholaiRen]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Feel free to keep beating this dead horse if you wish, but I’m not interested this evening in further brutalizing the aforementioned deceased equine. 

What dead horse??????

[iNow]

1 minute ago, NicholaiRen said:

What dead horse??????

Read the thread. Cheers, friend

[NicholaiRen]

Just now, iNow said:

Read the thread. Cheers, friend

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.