4 ms·

You are clearly bias. Calling any of them a rapist shows that. None of the justices have any court cases even against them for rape. At least 2 were accused of

You are clearly bias. Calling any of them a rapist shows that. None of the justices have any court cases even against them for rape. At least 2 were accused of rape, but that is far from being a rapist. If all that it takes is an accusation then fine. You raped me. That means you are a rapist now. Please make sure you are added to the sex offenders list.

mrguyorama 4y ago
You're missing the concept of "credible accusations". The court of public opinion does not care about "beyond a reasonable doubt" because if we actually limited anything to that nobody would be punished for anything. If you want "convicted" to be the bar before the public treats someone poorly, you're going to have a bad time, because it's terribly difficult to actually convict someone of rape because there's almost never any actual evidence, by the very nature of the crime. Nevermind the fact that lots of people either cannot admit to themselves or don't remember or don't realize they were raped. Very few people who actually commit rape (whether they realize it or not) end up convicted. It's not a rigorous stat, because again, the reality of the situation is only truly known by the two involved, so it often comes down to who you trust. Consider why you trust supreme court justices to not have raped people.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >You're missing the concept of "credible accusations". I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. >The court of public opinion does not care about "beyond a reasonable doubt" because if we actually limited anything to that nobody would be punished for anything. Sure, but people don't need to go calling people rapists just because they got accused. >If you want "convicted" to be the bar before the public treats someone poorly, you're going to have a bad time, because it's terribly difficult to actually convict someone of rape because there's almost never any actual evidence, by the very nature of the crime I just want some level of evidence more than just having an accusation that something happened years ago. That just isn't enough for me to treat someone poorly. Maybe a couple accusations or weird behavior or the alleged suspect getting caught in lies about this issue or something. Eye witness testimony is very frequently inaccurate especially when the incident occurred decades before. And that is with the assumption they aren't making it up. An accusation especially against political people is just not trustworthy in my view to begin with. People lie for politics all the time. People slander/libel for politics all the time. Why should I trust an accusation without any corroborating evidence or additional accusations or anything of the sort? >Nevermind the fact that lots of people either cannot admit to themselves or don't remember or don't realize they were raped. That presumably wouldn't make a difference in this situation. If they won't admit it or don't remember then they won't be accusing justices of doing it. >Very few people who actually commit rape (whether they realize it or not) end up convicted. It's not a rigorous stat, because again, the reality of the situation is only truly known by the two involved, so it often comes down to who you trust I understand. I should have been more clear that I don't strictly need a guilty verdict. I want something more than a single accusation especially against political people. >Consider why you trust supreme court justices to not have raped people. I never said I don't think they raped anybody. They very well may have. I think people who are in positions of power probably on average have lower morals and are more likely to be a rapist. I just don't like going around calling people rapists without any real evidence other than just an accusation that came up years / decades after it allegedly occurred. I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case.
  - olliej 4y ago
    > I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. Of course you don't, it's just the word of a woman, and as noted elsewhere you're clearly sexist. The FBI had more than 4500 tips, a multiple corroborating witnesses. They chose not to go anywhere due to it being the 80s and all rapes being the woman's fault. But I'm going to say: it's a very clearly credible claim if there were supporting witness statements even in the 80s. > I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case. If a someone's position is that trans and gay people should be de facto treated as criminals or at the very least denied equal protection under law they're clearly transphobic and/or homophobic. If you vote in support of those policies you are stating very clearly that you don't consider LGBT people to be, you know, people. Because the idea that treating them equally is just a "political position" is an explicit statement that they you do not consider them to be people. If someone supports groups that have explicitly stated white supremacist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic "talking points", then they are antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic. If someone is avoiding overt statements by using dog whistles ("urban youth", "globalist", "anti-family", etc) they are racist, antisemitic, etc. The only people driving divisiveness are conservatives. They're very clearly, and on the record, and proud of incessant statements attacking the right of large swathes of people just to exist, let alone have any kind of equal rights. They're aggressively pushing laws with the explicit intent of legalizing discrimination. A super common refrain of bigots is that if people would just be quiet and accept the bigotry, then "eventually" they'll get the equality they want. This has repeatedly been shown to be complete BS - the _only_ thing that causes change is making noise. While the bigots on the Supreme Court have been aggressively dismantling the civil rights act, that only passed after huge protests lasting years, in which many many protestors were beaten (often by police in the white power states), and quite a few were murdered. Rosa Parks sitting in the "white only" section of a bus and refusing to leave was a "crime" according to the white supremacist states. Similarly Mildred&Richard Loving. Demanding acquiescence is purely a tool of the people enforcing the bigotry.
    - 4y ago
olliej 4y ago
They were credibly accused, and only by virtue of being a reliable conservative judge, even if excessively emotional, was he confirmed. The FBI got 4500 tips in the 80s, as well as multiple corroborating witnesses and chose not to investigate - presumably because of Kavanaugh's family and the 80s being even worse at investigating or prosecuting rape than they are today. There are then more recent, similarly corroborated cases of sexual harassment by Kavanaugh which confirm the kind of person he is. So yeah I'm biased, in the sense that I consider a bunch of judges that are clearly uninterested in the law if it ever runs counter to their personal beliefs to be fundamentally unfit to serve, and I consider a judge that supports an insurrection to be similarly unfit to serve. Your piss poor attempt at an argument is more reflective of your own bias and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own - based on your comments in other threads - fairly sexist world view. I'm going to assume that you would be one of those jurors that would happily accept and defend the "she was clearly asking for it"/"she's a slut"/"why would she be drinking" rape defense. I really hope that you're never put in an employment position giving you any power over women, and I sure as shit hope I never have to work with you - I already have enough shithead "conservative" coworkers w/o adding someone who is at the very least sexist.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  >They were credibly accused, and only by virtue of being a reliable conservative judge, even if excessively emotional, was he confirmed This is just not the case. Ford had many issues - She couldn't remember which party it happened at - She couldn't remember what year it even happened - She told nobody until 2012 and even then she didn't mention Kavanaugh - Multiple people she described as her friends denied they knew anything of this event including one who was allegedly at the party - She lied to the Washington Post when she said she was frustrated that in 2016 she heard that Trump would potentially nominate Kavanaugh. She couldn't have been frustrated in 2016 since Kavanaugh didn't have his name put out until 2017. - Her parents and siblings would not sign a document in support of her statement. Her family in law did though. >The FBI got 4500 tips in the 80s, as well as multiple corroborating witnesses and chose not to investigate - presumably because of Kavanaugh's family and the 80s being even worse at investigating or prosecuting rape than they are today. Prove to me that the police were even informed. >There are then more recent, similarly corroborated cases of sexual harassment by Kavanaugh which confirm the kind of person he is. Provide examples. >So yeah I'm biased, in the sense that I consider a bunch of judges that are clearly uninterested in the law if it ever runs counter to their personal beliefs to be fundamentally unfit to serve You haven't shown this is the case. >and I consider a judge that supports an insurrection to be similarly unfit to serve. Which judge did that? I assume you will say Thomas, but that was his wife. Unless you are going to say that spouses are responsible for everything they do, you can't put that blame on him. Thinking a man should have complete control over what his wife says is a remarkable sexist view. >Your piss poor attempt at an argument is more reflective of your own bias and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own - based on your comments in other threads - fairly sexist world view. You are the one making the claim that we should believe women because they are women. That is sexist. I am saying let's ignore their sex and only look at the facts. >I'm going to assume that you would be one of those jurors that would happily accept and defend the "she was clearly asking for it"/"she's a slut"/"why would she be drinking" rape defense. Please stop being an idiot. If you genuinely believe I think this then you need to get off the internet and as the kids say touch grass. >I really hope that you're never put in an employment position giving you any power over women, and I sure as shit hope I never have to work with you - I already have enough shithead "conservative" coworkers w/o adding someone who is at the very least sexist. I have stated multiple times in these posts (might not have been to you though) that Ford quite possibly was assaulted and Kavanaugh was possibly involved. Instead of just asking my view on this you just assumed what I believe and had the audacity to call me a sexist. I'm not sure if you are implying I would rape a women with your statement about having power over a women or not but whatever you are trying to say is disgusting. I will never rape a women or be sexist to her. I think all rapists are terrible and the minimum punishment they should get is life in prison with no parole. You are the bigoted person in this conversation. You assumed my entire world view and accused me of disgusting things. That is what a bigot does. You are the shithead not me.

mrguyorama 4y ago

You're missing the concept of "credible accusations". The court of public opinion does not care about "beyond a reasonable doubt" because if we actually limited anything to that nobody would be punished for anything. If you want "convicted" to be the bar before the public treats someone poorly, you're going to have a bad time, because it's terribly difficult to actually convict someone of rape because there's almost never any actual evidence, by the very nature of the crime. Nevermind the fact that lots of people either cannot admit to themselves or don't remember or don't realize they were raped. Very few people who actually commit rape (whether they realize it or not) end up convicted. It's not a rigorous stat, because again, the reality of the situation is only truly known by the two involved, so it often comes down to who you trust. Consider why you trust supreme court justices to not have raped people.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>You're missing the concept of "credible accusations". I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. >The court of public opinion does not care about "beyond a reasonable doubt" because if we actually limited anything to that nobody would be punished for anything. Sure, but people don't need to go calling people rapists just because they got accused. >If you want "convicted" to be the bar before the public treats someone poorly, you're going to have a bad time, because it's terribly difficult to actually convict someone of rape because there's almost never any actual evidence, by the very nature of the crime I just want some level of evidence more than just having an accusation that something happened years ago. That just isn't enough for me to treat someone poorly. Maybe a couple accusations or weird behavior or the alleged suspect getting caught in lies about this issue or something. Eye witness testimony is very frequently inaccurate especially when the incident occurred decades before. And that is with the assumption they aren't making it up. An accusation especially against political people is just not trustworthy in my view to begin with. People lie for politics all the time. People slander/libel for politics all the time. Why should I trust an accusation without any corroborating evidence or additional accusations or anything of the sort? >Nevermind the fact that lots of people either cannot admit to themselves or don't remember or don't realize they were raped. That presumably wouldn't make a difference in this situation. If they won't admit it or don't remember then they won't be accusing justices of doing it. >Very few people who actually commit rape (whether they realize it or not) end up convicted. It's not a rigorous stat, because again, the reality of the situation is only truly known by the two involved, so it often comes down to who you trust I understand. I should have been more clear that I don't strictly need a guilty verdict. I want something more than a single accusation especially against political people. >Consider why you trust supreme court justices to not have raped people. I never said I don't think they raped anybody. They very well may have. I think people who are in positions of power probably on average have lower morals and are more likely to be a rapist. I just don't like going around calling people rapists without any real evidence other than just an accusation that came up years / decades after it allegedly occurred. I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case.
- olliej 4y ago
  > I don't consider them to be credible so I am not missing anything. Of course you don't, it's just the word of a woman, and as noted elsewhere you're clearly sexist. The FBI had more than 4500 tips, a multiple corroborating witnesses. They chose not to go anywhere due to it being the 80s and all rapes being the woman's fault. But I'm going to say: it's a very clearly credible claim if there were supporting witness statements even in the 80s. > I think we are getting to a point where people throw around allegations and various -ists and phobias too often. Every day somebody is called a racist or homophobe or is accused of being a traitor to the country. I think we need to cool it with decisiveness and stop with this type of language unless there is a reason to use in a specific case. If a someone's position is that trans and gay people should be de facto treated as criminals or at the very least denied equal protection under law they're clearly transphobic and/or homophobic. If you vote in support of those policies you are stating very clearly that you don't consider LGBT people to be, you know, people. Because the idea that treating them equally is just a "political position" is an explicit statement that they you do not consider them to be people. If someone supports groups that have explicitly stated white supremacist, antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic "talking points", then they are antisemitic, sexist, homophobic and/or transphobic. If someone is avoiding overt statements by using dog whistles ("urban youth", "globalist", "anti-family", etc) they are racist, antisemitic, etc. The only people driving divisiveness are conservatives. They're very clearly, and on the record, and proud of incessant statements attacking the right of large swathes of people just to exist, let alone have any kind of equal rights. They're aggressively pushing laws with the explicit intent of legalizing discrimination. A super common refrain of bigots is that if people would just be quiet and accept the bigotry, then "eventually" they'll get the equality they want. This has repeatedly been shown to be complete BS - the _only_ thing that causes change is making noise. While the bigots on the Supreme Court have been aggressively dismantling the civil rights act, that only passed after huge protests lasting years, in which many many protestors were beaten (often by police in the white power states), and quite a few were murdered. Rosa Parks sitting in the "white only" section of a bus and refusing to leave was a "crime" according to the white supremacist states. Similarly Mildred&Richard Loving. Demanding acquiescence is purely a tool of the people enforcing the bigotry.
  - 4y ago

olliej 4y ago

They were credibly accused, and only by virtue of being a reliable conservative judge, even if excessively emotional, was he confirmed. The FBI got 4500 tips in the 80s, as well as multiple corroborating witnesses and chose not to investigate - presumably because of Kavanaugh's family and the 80s being even worse at investigating or prosecuting rape than they are today. There are then more recent, similarly corroborated cases of sexual harassment by Kavanaugh which confirm the kind of person he is. So yeah I'm biased, in the sense that I consider a bunch of judges that are clearly uninterested in the law if it ever runs counter to their personal beliefs to be fundamentally unfit to serve, and I consider a judge that supports an insurrection to be similarly unfit to serve. Your piss poor attempt at an argument is more reflective of your own bias and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own - based on your comments in other threads - fairly sexist world view. I'm going to assume that you would be one of those jurors that would happily accept and defend the "she was clearly asking for it"/"she's a slut"/"why would she be drinking" rape defense. I really hope that you're never put in an employment position giving you any power over women, and I sure as shit hope I never have to work with you - I already have enough shithead "conservative" coworkers w/o adding someone who is at the very least sexist.

_-david-_ 4y ago
>They were credibly accused, and only by virtue of being a reliable conservative judge, even if excessively emotional, was he confirmed This is just not the case. Ford had many issues - She couldn't remember which party it happened at - She couldn't remember what year it even happened - She told nobody until 2012 and even then she didn't mention Kavanaugh - Multiple people she described as her friends denied they knew anything of this event including one who was allegedly at the party - She lied to the Washington Post when she said she was frustrated that in 2016 she heard that Trump would potentially nominate Kavanaugh. She couldn't have been frustrated in 2016 since Kavanaugh didn't have his name put out until 2017. - Her parents and siblings would not sign a document in support of her statement. Her family in law did though. >The FBI got 4500 tips in the 80s, as well as multiple corroborating witnesses and chose not to investigate - presumably because of Kavanaugh's family and the 80s being even worse at investigating or prosecuting rape than they are today. Prove to me that the police were even informed. >There are then more recent, similarly corroborated cases of sexual harassment by Kavanaugh which confirm the kind of person he is. Provide examples. >So yeah I'm biased, in the sense that I consider a bunch of judges that are clearly uninterested in the law if it ever runs counter to their personal beliefs to be fundamentally unfit to serve You haven't shown this is the case. >and I consider a judge that supports an insurrection to be similarly unfit to serve. Which judge did that? I assume you will say Thomas, but that was his wife. Unless you are going to say that spouses are responsible for everything they do, you can't put that blame on him. Thinking a man should have complete control over what his wife says is a remarkable sexist view. >Your piss poor attempt at an argument is more reflective of your own bias and unwillingness to consider anything other than your own - based on your comments in other threads - fairly sexist world view. You are the one making the claim that we should believe women because they are women. That is sexist. I am saying let's ignore their sex and only look at the facts. >I'm going to assume that you would be one of those jurors that would happily accept and defend the "she was clearly asking for it"/"she's a slut"/"why would she be drinking" rape defense. Please stop being an idiot. If you genuinely believe I think this then you need to get off the internet and as the kids say touch grass. >I really hope that you're never put in an employment position giving you any power over women, and I sure as shit hope I never have to work with you - I already have enough shithead "conservative" coworkers w/o adding someone who is at the very least sexist. I have stated multiple times in these posts (might not have been to you though) that Ford quite possibly was assaulted and Kavanaugh was possibly involved. Instead of just asking my view on this you just assumed what I believe and had the audacity to call me a sexist. I'm not sure if you are implying I would rape a women with your statement about having power over a women or not but whatever you are trying to say is disgusting. I will never rape a women or be sexist to her. I think all rapists are terrible and the minimum punishment they should get is life in prison with no parole. You are the bigoted person in this conversation. You assumed my entire world view and accused me of disgusting things. That is what a bigot does. You are the shithead not me.