|
Post by kirinke on May 4, 2020 20:34:08 GMT
I dunno. I really don't. She has a good case for sexual harassment. But the sexual assault? She's been getting dodgier on it the more she's questioned about it.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 4, 2020 21:40:41 GMT
I dunno. I really don't. She has a good case for sexual harassment. But the sexual assault? She's been getting dodgier on it the more she's questioned about it. Maybe harassment. Was it an ongoing thing where she said no and he continued? If it was a one time incident, then a pattern of harassment hasn't been established.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 4, 2020 22:23:28 GMT
It's hard to say one way or another. I can't say for other women, but after the shock wore off, I'd be pitching a fit.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on May 5, 2020 10:44:51 GMT
I dunno. I really don't. She has a good case for sexual harassment. But the sexual assault? She's been getting dodgier on it the more she's questioned about it. Maybe harassment. Was it an ongoing thing where she said no and he continued? If it was a one time incident, then a pattern of harassment hasn't been established. The accusation is sexual assault. Digital penetration. There's no harrassment claim, here, it jumped straight to assault. And, one time incidents can be harrassment, if severe enough. Usually, it is a pattern, but this is not a requirement in all cases.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on May 5, 2020 12:14:46 GMT
I know. I was talking about both. The assault is the dodgy bit.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on May 5, 2020 13:54:23 GMT
I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis run on the Biden situation yet - dozens of such analyses were offered regarding Kavanaugh, none of which, IIRC, suggested more than a 50% chance of innocence for the judge. And while you can adjust the sliders on your priors to your taste, even those that were arguing a fortiori for Kavanaugh's innocence didn't look good.
With Biden, my sense is that Reade's case is even more compelling; it's really hard to think of a reason why she might lie without roaming into conspiracy theory territory, and the specifics of the assault don't leave much room for mistaken identity or misremembering. There was no boozy teenage haze here, either.
In each case, prima facie, my tendency is to believe the accuser. More so, in Biden's case.
This is not to say, Maxperson, that I think sufficient evidence of guilt is present in either case.
Assuming that each accuser is accurate and faithful in their memories, it seems that the burden of moral culpability is also much higher with Biden, given his age, status, the power differential with the accuser etc.
In Kavanaugh's case...I just think he was a stupid, drunk 17-year old; this is not to excuse him of his actions, but they need to be given context. At some point, some kind of moratorium is going to be needed for stupid shit I did in the 80s when I was a teenager as we can't keep applying ex post facto 2020 morality and expect it to deliver "justice" regarding alleged events so distant in time.
That said, I also think the general #metoo pendulum has achieved a kind of uneasy balance. For now.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 14:40:55 GMT
Maybe harassment. Was it an ongoing thing where she said no and he continued? If it was a one time incident, then a pattern of harassment hasn't been established. The accusation is sexual assault. Digital penetration. There's no harrassment claim, here, it jumped straight to assault. And, one time incidents can be harrassment, if severe enough. Usually, it is a pattern, but this is not a requirement in all cases. There's no hard evidence of Sexual Assault. She might be able to prove harassment, though, if there's enough evidence to support it.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 14:46:18 GMT
I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis run on the Biden situation yet - dozens of such analyses were offered regarding Kavanaugh, none of which, IIRC, suggested more than a 50% chance of innocence for the judge. And while you can adjust the sliders on your priors to your taste, even those that were arguing a fortiori for Kavanaugh's innocence didn't look good. With Biden, my sense is that Reade's case is even more compelling; it's really hard to think of a reason why she might lie without roaming into conspiracy theory territory, and the specifics of the assault don't leave much room for mistaken identity or misremembering. There was no boozy teenage haze here, either. In each case, prima facie, my tendency is to believe the accuser. More so, in Biden's case. This is not to say, Maxperson, that I think sufficient evidence of guilt is present in either case. Assuming that each accuser is accurate and faithful in their memories, it seems that the burden of moral culpability is also much higher with Biden, given his age, status, the power differential with the accuser etc. In Kavanaugh's case...I just think he was a stupid, drunk 17-year old; this is not to excuse him of his actions, but they need to be given context. At some point, some kind of moratorium is going to be needed for stupid shit I did in the 80s when I was a teenager as we can't keep applying ex post facto 2020 morality and expect it to deliver "justice" regarding alleged events so distant in time. That said, I also think the general #metoo pendulum has achieved a kind of uneasy balance. For now. As someone who has been falsely accused, I can say that's a stupid position to take. False accusations happen fairly often, for a variety of reasons. The Innocence Project did a study and concluded that even a year after a crime, memory eroded considerably and was unreliable. At least one of those they proved innocent via DNA was a rapist put in jail because the accuser swore he was the guy. You can just believe accusers willy nilly, but I won't do that. Without hard evidence I am not going to treat someone as if they have been convicted.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 5, 2020 15:31:13 GMT
I haven't seen a Bayesian analysis run on the Biden situation yet - dozens of such analyses were offered regarding Kavanaugh, none of which, IIRC, suggested more than a 50% chance of innocence for the judge. And while you can adjust the sliders on your priors to your taste, even those that were arguing a fortiori for Kavanaugh's innocence didn't look good. With Biden, my sense is that Reade's case is even more compelling; it's really hard to think of a reason why she might lie without roaming into conspiracy theory territory, and the specifics of the assault don't leave much room for mistaken identity or misremembering. There was no boozy teenage haze here, either. In each case, prima facie, my tendency is to believe the accuser. More so, in Biden's case. This is not to say, Maxperson, that I think sufficient evidence of guilt is present in either case. Assuming that each accuser is accurate and faithful in their memories, it seems that the burden of moral culpability is also much higher with Biden, given his age, status, the power differential with the accuser etc. In Kavanaugh's case...I just think he was a stupid, drunk 17-year old; this is not to excuse him of his actions, but they need to be given context. At some point, some kind of moratorium is going to be needed for stupid shit I did in the 80s when I was a teenager as we can't keep applying ex post facto 2020 morality and expect it to deliver "justice" regarding alleged events so distant in time. That said, I also think the general #metoo pendulum has achieved a kind of uneasy balance. For now. As someone who has been falsely accused, I can say that's a stupid position to take. False accusations happen fairly often, for a variety of reasons. The Innocence Project did a study and concluded that even a year after a crime, memory eroded considerably and was unreliable. At least one of those they proved innocent via DNA was a rapist put in jail because the accuser swore he was the guy. You can just believe accusers willy nilly, but I won't do that. Without hard evidence I am not going to treat someone as if they have been convicted. I don't think that false accusations happen all that often. Because accusations don't happen all that often. Because society STILL doesn't believe women when they say they were assaulted. And then there's the portion of society that STILL blames the women for the way they act, dress, etc. It's even other women who say that. As if men can't fucking control themselves. Tara Reade's accusation is a perfect example for the don't believe portion. It is, and can only be, a she said-he said situation. Though there is her demotion to wonder about.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 15:46:03 GMT
As someone who has been falsely accused, I can say that's a stupid position to take. False accusations happen fairly often, for a variety of reasons. The Innocence Project did a study and concluded that even a year after a crime, memory eroded considerably and was unreliable. At least one of those they proved innocent via DNA was a rapist put in jail because the accuser swore he was the guy. You can just believe accusers willy nilly, but I won't do that. Without hard evidence I am not going to treat someone as if they have been convicted. I don't think that false accusations happen all that often. Because accusations don't happen all that often. Because society STILL doesn't believe women when they say they were assaulted. And then there's the portion of society that STILL blames the women for the way they act, dress, etc. It's even other women who say that. As if men can't fucking control themselves. Tara Reade's accusation is a perfect example for the don't believe portion. It is, and can only be, a she said-he said situation. Though there is her demotion to wonder about. 37% get reported, and I don't have the numbers on me, but there are a huge number of sexual assaults every year. They get reported a lot. I attach no blame to a woman, because yes a man can control himself so it's his fault if he assaults someone. That said, if it's she said-he said, it's over as far as I'm concerned. I will feel bad for her, but I won't convict him in my mind without hard evidence to back her up. Good point on her demotion. That's a possible motive for her to make this up. Or it could be that he demoted her for not going along. No way for us to know which one it is without some hard evidence.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on May 5, 2020 17:01:29 GMT
I don't think that false accusations happen all that often. Because accusations don't happen all that often. Because society STILL doesn't believe women when they say they were assaulted. And then there's the portion of society that STILL blames the women for the way they act, dress, etc. It's even other women who say that. As if men can't fucking control themselves. Tara Reade's accusation is a perfect example for the don't believe portion. It is, and can only be, a she said-he said situation. Though there is her demotion to wonder about. 37% get reported, and I don't have the numbers on me, but there are a huge number of sexual assaults every year. They get reported a lot. I attach no blame to a woman, because yes a man can control himself so it's his fault if he assaults someone. That said, if it's she said-he said, it's over as far as I'm concerned. I will feel bad for her, but I won't convict him in my mind without hard evidence to back her up. Good point on her demotion. That's a possible motive for her to make this up. Or it could be that he demoted her for not going along. No way for us to know which one it is without some hard evidence. 37% get reported? And you call that a lot? Even if it's a large number, it's not even close to the majority of sexual assaults. That's a problem, and ignoring them is why the percentage is so low.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 17:17:53 GMT
37% get reported, and I don't have the numbers on me, but there are a huge number of sexual assaults every year. They get reported a lot. I attach no blame to a woman, because yes a man can control himself so it's his fault if he assaults someone. That said, if it's she said-he said, it's over as far as I'm concerned. I will feel bad for her, but I won't convict him in my mind without hard evidence to back her up. Good point on her demotion. That's a possible motive for her to make this up. Or it could be that he demoted her for not going along. No way for us to know which one it is without some hard evidence. 37% get reported? And you call that a lot? Even if it's a large number, it's not even close to the majority of sexual assaults. That's a problem, and ignoring them is why the percentage is so low. Stop moving the goalposts. We're discussing how many get reported, not whether the number is a majority of those that happen. And yes, it is a problem. If they were reported timely, it would be in time to gather that hard evidence that is required. If the woman waits 20 years, she should expect the report to amount to nothing. He said-she said is not sufficient to act on. Period. What we need to do is get women to report these assaults right away and take the reports seriously. Then if/when hard corroborating evidence is found, the guy can be jailed for it.
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on May 5, 2020 18:05:03 GMT
Do you guys mind explaining what "reported" represents? - How does time play a role? Is it a specific number of days from the date of alleged transgression, legal statue of limitations, ever?
- Does the term reported mean filing an actual police report? It is not simply the confession of events by an alleged victim (or bystanders) in a social setting, correct?
- How do we determine the reported percentage? Is this the number of police reports divided by the number of event confessions? If not, how do we accurately account for silent victims?
I understand that sexual crimes are committed. Some reports are official, while others are social. Some reports are accurate and are collaborated with well-substantiated evidence (video, audio, DNA), others are inaccurate due to memory limitations (state of mind at the time of the offense: fear, fatigue, sobriety; blurring of details over time) and lack of other evidence (unaccountable), and those that are patently fraudulent (infidelity complications, remorse/slut-shaming, revenge). How are these figures tallied?
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on May 5, 2020 20:04:11 GMT
Do you guys mind explaining what "reported" represents? - How does time play a role? Is it a specific number of days from the date of alleged transgression, legal statue of limitations, ever?
- Does the term reported mean filing an actual police report? It is not simply the confession of events by an alleged victim (or bystanders) in a social setting, correct?
- How do we determine the reported percentage? Is this the number of police reports divided by the number of event confessions? If not, how do we accurately account for silent victims?
I understand that sexual crimes are committed. Some reports are official, while others are social. Some reports are accurate and are collaborated with well-substantiated evidence (video, audio, DNA), others are inaccurate due to memory limitations (state of mind at the time of the offense: fear, fatigue, sobriety; blurring of details over time) and lack of other evidence (unaccountable), and those that are patently fraudulent (infidelity complications, remorse/slut-shaming, revenge). How are these figures tallied?
This is the group that had the 37% number. On this page they cite 40% and 25%(different years), and they aren't clear on whether it's to the cops or not, but they are probably monitoring police reports and these are women who go to the cops after being assaulted. www.nsvrc.org/statistics
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on May 5, 2020 20:29:03 GMT
Do you guys mind explaining what "reported" represents? - How does time play a role? Is it a specific number of days from the date of alleged transgression, legal statue of limitations, ever?
- Does the term reported mean filing an actual police report? It is not simply the confession of events by an alleged victim (or bystanders) in a social setting, correct?
- How do we determine the reported percentage? Is this the number of police reports divided by the number of event confessions? If not, how do we accurately account for silent victims?
I understand that sexual crimes are committed. Some reports are official, while others are social. Some reports are accurate and are collaborated with well-substantiated evidence (video, audio, DNA), others are inaccurate due to memory limitations (state of mind at the time of the offense: fear, fatigue, sobriety; blurring of details over time) and lack of other evidence (unaccountable), and those that are patently fraudulent (infidelity complications, remorse/slut-shaming, revenge). How are these figures tallied?
This is the group that had the 37% number. On this page they cite 40% and 25%(different years), and they aren't clear on whether it's to the cops or not, but they are probably monitoring police reports and these are women who go to the cops after being assaulted. www.nsvrc.org/statisticsThanks!
|
|