Foo wrote:I went to New Orleans for anew Years when I was 21. While there a girl asked to kiss me for beads. I consented. She stuck her tongue in my mouth and grabbed my penis, which I did not. I sent to. Am I the victim of a sexual assault? Should this girl be removed from consideration for future employment?
Someone's life should not be ruined for something so minor.
If the person on the receiving end is traumatized for life and has issues because of it, then I don’t see why the other person is meant to be consequence free.
What about the state of mind of the victim and how that plays into the severity of the same act? Because I am not a litigious guy, the girl who assaulted me will never have to worry about it. A person touched me. I extracted myself from the situation and moved on.
Let's say if I was more sensitive, had political differences I wanted to exploit, or simply had less to do in my life. Is that fair to the accused to treat the situation differently?
When a hobo reaches up and grabs my nuts, I walk away and tell you guys about it later and laugh. When Elon Musk does the same, I sue for $100M. Is that the way it works?
Foo wrote:Sorry for the iphone autocorrects earlier.
What about the state of mind of the victim and how that lays into the severity of the same act? Because I am not a litigious guy, the girl who assaulted me will never have to worry about it. A person touched me. I extracted myself from the situation and moved on.
Let's say if I was more sensitive, had political differences I wanted to exploit, or simply had less to do in my life. Is that fair to the accused to treat the situation differently?
there is a possibility of falsely accusing someone or accusing someone out of vendetta or something. that should be taken into account, but it shouldn't be used as a way to blow off any accusation. this should be taken at a case by case basis.
how did that incident affect you? how are we to know how it would affect someone else? do you expect everyone to be affected the same way that you were?
Foo wrote:Sorry for the iphone autocorrects earlier.
What about the state of mind of the victim and how that lays into the severity of the same act? Because I am not a litigious guy, the girl who assaulted me will never have to worry about it. A person touched me. I extracted myself from the situation and moved on.
Let's say if I was more sensitive, had political differences I wanted to exploit, or simply had less to do in my life. Is that fair to the accused to treat the situation differently?
there is a possibility of falsely accusing someone or accusing someone out of vendetta or something. that should be taken into account, but it shouldn't be used as a way to blow off any accusation. this should be taken at a case by case basis.
how did that incident affect you? how are we to know how it would affect someone else? do you expect everyone to be affected the same way that you were?
Again, if someone lacks mental toughness, should the accused be in more peril? And isn't that the way it is working now? Is it a coincidence that many of the accusers we are seeing are known to be dramatic and overplay their hand, in general? Look at the ongoing McGowen-Argento situation that has zero to do with Weinstein.
If he did what she said he should remove himself from this nomination but it must be proven. You just can't take somebodies word for it who to be honest has handled this whole situation horribly which no doubt is in part poor coaching from the democrats who I don't think give two shits about her well being.
Tiggnutz wrote:If he did what she said he should remove himself from this nomination but it must be proven. You just can't take somebodies word for it who to be honest has handled this whole situation horribly which no doubt is in part poor coaching from the democrats who I don't think give two shits about her well being.
I think based on all her "Witnesses" claiming not to be there, it is kinda unbelievable we are even considering the accusation at this point, but humor me for a moment. At what point do you disqualify someone from future work? Let's say something happened, but not to the extreme she says it did. What if they were both drunk, and he grabbed her boobs at age 15-16. Can you never hold a great job?
To take it a step further, what are we to then tell young people who did or will make mistakes? "Sorry, your life is over." ?
Foo wrote:
Again, if someone lacks mental toughness, should the accused be in more peril? And isn't that the way it is working now? Is it a coincidence that many of the accusers we are seeing are known to be dramatic and overplay their hand, in general? Look at the ongoing McGowen-Argento situation that has zero to do with Weinstein.
don't conflate "lack of mental toughness" with being opportunistic and dishonest. that's what i say.
Foo wrote:
Again, if someone lacks mental toughness, should the accused be in more peril? And isn't that the way it is working now? Is it a coincidence that many of the accusers we are seeing are known to be dramatic and overplay their hand, in general? Look at the ongoing McGowen-Argento situation that has zero to do with Weinstein.
don't conflate "lack of mental toughness" with being opportunistic and dishonest. that's what i say.
Ok, let's just focus on that. Is it fair if one person can put things into context and another person over dramatizes things, and we treat the accused different as a result?
Dramatic people usually have lots of problems and have no shortage of situations they cannot overcome. I mean, the Kavanaugh accuser is bringing up an assault during marriage counseling 15 years later that seems so minor in the grand scheme of one's life. Lot's of people get in a fight at one point in school or have some kind of situation that is scary or embarrassing, and even the way she describes it, would seem to be a moment, not a lifetime of issues.
Foo wrote:
Again, if someone lacks mental toughness, should the accused be in more peril? And isn't that the way it is working now? Is it a coincidence that many of the accusers we are seeing are known to be dramatic and overplay their hand, in general? Look at the ongoing McGowen-Argento situation that has zero to do with Weinstein.
don't conflate "lack of mental toughness" with being opportunistic and dishonest. that's what i say.
Ok, let's just focus on that. Is it fair if one person can put things into context and another person over dramatizes things, and we treat the accused different as a result?
Dramatic people usually have lots of problems and have no shortage of situations they cannot overcome. I mean, the Kavanaugh accuser is bringing up an assault during marriage counseling 15 years later that seems so minor in the grand scheme of one's life. Lot's of people get in a fight at one point in school or have some kind of situation that is scary or embarrassing, and even the way she describes it, would seem to be a moment, not a lifetime of issues.
first, how to you determine what is "putting things into context" and what is "overdramatizing things" ? both can be used to someone's advantage, and both could depend on the person being affected.
i don't know what to make of the kananaugh thing, which is why i have not really commented on that. i'm not about to start, here. i thought this had gone wider in scope. if not, i can bow out.
Foo wrote:
Again, if someone lacks mental toughness, should the accused be in more peril? And isn't that the way it is working now? Is it a coincidence that many of the accusers we are seeing are known to be dramatic and overplay their hand, in general? Look at the ongoing McGowen-Argento situation that has zero to do with Weinstein.
don't conflate "lack of mental toughness" with being opportunistic and dishonest. that's what i say.
Ok, let's just focus on that. Is it fair if one person can put things into context and another person over dramatizes things, and we treat the accused different as a result?
Dramatic people usually have lots of problems and have no shortage of situations they cannot overcome. I mean, the Kavanaugh accuser is bringing up an assault during marriage counseling 15 years later that seems so minor in the grand scheme of one's life. Lot's of people get in a fight at one point in school or have some kind of situation that is scary or embarrassing, and even the way she describes it, would seem to be a moment, not a lifetime of issues.
first, how to you determine what is "putting things into context" and what is "overdramatizing things" ? both can be used to someone's advantage, and both could depend on the person being affected.
i don't know what to make of the kananaugh thing, which is why i have not really commented on that. i'm not about to start, here. i thought this had gone wider in scope. if not, i can bow out.
Let's say if someone gropes you. Is that going to have a lifelong impact that requires years of therapy? Or is it a moment that you can put into context and move on from? Now, let's say a person cannot and requires years of therapy. Should the punishment change for the groper?
Foo wrote:
Let's say if someone gropes you. Is that going to have a lifelong impact that requires years of therapy? Or is it a moment that you can put into context and move on from? Now, let's say a person cannot and requires years of therapy. Should the punishment change for the groper?
the punishment should depend on the intent, how the accused did (or did not, possibly) abuse the victim, and on the victims ability to consent or deny consent.
i don't think that how it affected you vs. how it affected someone else should play into the punishment. but it should also not be used to make the person out to be a crybaby or not credible, whatever, if they were affected more by an attack than you may have been.
Foo wrote:
Let's say if someone gropes you. Is that going to have a lifelong impact that requires years of therapy? Or is it a moment that you can put into context and move on from? Now, let's say a person cannot and requires years of therapy. Should the punishment change for the groper?
the punishment should depend on the intent, how the accused did (or did not, possibly) abuse the victim, and on the victims ability to consent or deny consent.
i don't think that how it affected you vs. how it affected someone else should play into the punishment. but it should also not be used to make the person out to be a crybaby or not credible, whatever, if they were affected more by an attack than you may have been.
Can you see how it can cause a credibility problem with an accuser, though?
Ever read reviews on anything where you can click back and see the other reviews a person has done? Let's say you see an awful review of something that was the "Worst thing ever", and you click on their profile, and see 30 other reviews with similar rhetoric. Now compare that to clicking on that same review and discovering the person doing the reviews has perspective on whatever they are reviewing and doesn't over dramatize. Does it matter?
Foo wrote:
Let's say if someone gropes you. Is that going to have a lifelong impact that requires years of therapy? Or is it a moment that you can put into context and move on from? Now, let's say a person cannot and requires years of therapy. Should the punishment change for the groper?
the punishment should depend on the intent, how the accused did (or did not, possibly) abuse the victim, and on the victims ability to consent or deny consent.
i don't think that how it affected you vs. how it affected someone else should play into the punishment. but it should also not be used to make the person out to be a crybaby or not credible, whatever, if they were affected more by an attack than you may have been.
Can you see how it can cause a credibility problem with an accuser, though?
Ever read reviews on anything where you can click back and see the other reviews a person has done? Let's say you see an awful review of something that was the "Worst thing ever", and you click on their profile, and see 30 other reviews with similar rhetoric. Now compare that to clicking on that same review and discovering the person doing the reviews has perspective on whatever they are reviewing and doesn't over dramatize. Does it matter?
yes, if someone is being purposely trying to overplay the impact something has on them, i can see it causing a credibility problem. my issue is how do you determine that? and are you expecting everyone else to have the same experience that you had with an event?
that bad review analogy doesn't fit what we're talking about to me. it feels like downplaying it, severely.
Foo wrote:
Let's say if someone gropes you. Is that going to have a lifelong impact that requires years of therapy? Or is it a moment that you can put into context and move on from? Now, let's say a person cannot and requires years of therapy. Should the punishment change for the groper?
the punishment should depend on the intent, how the accused did (or did not, possibly) abuse the victim, and on the victims ability to consent or deny consent.
i don't think that how it affected you vs. how it affected someone else should play into the punishment. but it should also not be used to make the person out to be a crybaby or not credible, whatever, if they were affected more by an attack than you may have been.
Can you see how it can cause a credibility problem with an accuser, though?
Ever read reviews on anything where you can click back and see the other reviews a person has done? Let's say you see an awful review of something that was the "Worst thing ever", and you click on their profile, and see 30 other reviews with similar rhetoric. Now compare that to clicking on that same review and discovering the person doing the reviews has perspective on whatever they are reviewing and doesn't over dramatize. Does it matter?
yes, if someone is being purposely trying to overplay the impact something has on them, i can see it causing a credibility problem. my issue is how do you determine that? and are you expecting everyone else to have the same experience that you had with an event?
that bad review analogy doesn't fit what we're talking about to me. it feels like downplaying it, severely.
I feel like society has to be more clear about shades of grey in sexual assault and harassment. Also, we have to decide appropriate punishments for it. Some of these situations I am hearing just seem so small and petty, and baiscally hid behind a category that groups rape to make it seem more severe.
If a 16 year old girl grabbed your dick when you were 16, would you say her future career should be greatly impacted when you are 45?
Foo wrote:
I feel like society has to be more clear about shades of grey in sexual assault and harassment. Also, we have to decide appropriate punishments for it. Some of these situations I am hearing just seem so small and petty, and baiscally hid behind a category that groups rape to make it seem more severe.
If a 16 year old girl grabbed your dick when you were 16, would you say her future career should be greatly impacted when you are 45?
punishment should be separated from how deep the emotional scars of an attack goes or the person's ability to move past it. etc. you don't ask a family how they think a death of a son impacted them in determining whether it's murder or manslaughter or whatever. that should be two separate things. but we aren't deciding punishment. we are discussing the credibility of victims and how an event should impact them.
no. again, punishment should be separated from emotional impact.
i thought this had gone wider in scope. if not, i can bow out.
