|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 6, 2015 20:31:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Apr 6, 2015 20:51:35 GMT
No chance they could ever win but maybe it will send a message to other news media about journalistic integrity. But somehow I doubt that too. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 6, 2015 22:28:53 GMT
No chance they could ever win but maybe it will send a message to other news media about journalistic integrity. But somehow I doubt that too. As long as it doesn't end up inadvertently sending the message that gang rape never happens in these places and if a girl/woman becomes a victim of rape in a fraternity house, there's no reason to report it, because no one will believe her anyway. As I see it, the potential for that happening is the biggest and worst possible consequense of what this reporter did. Rape victims have a hard enough time as it is. False accusations, be it by individuals or by the press, don't exactly make it any easier for them to come forward and be taken seriously when they do. I hope she's well and truly ashamed of herself, but knowing these sensation-chasers, she's probably just ashamed that she didn't cover her butt well enough and got caught. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 7, 2015 1:25:04 GMT
Frankly, I've heard of occasionally gang rapes being committed, and you know what? So did everyone else who watched the news. It usually ends with "...and the perpetrators are facing x years in prison".
Why? Because it's a heinous crime that every decent person abhors. Half the time it's the perpetrators that give themselves away by talking (or youtubing).
No one in their right mind thinks there is no reason to report gang rape. Seriously, I'd love to see the person who thinks otherwise.
We've got to tell the colleges that they don't have the ability or right to prosecute serious crime (and gang rape is about as serious as it gets).
It's not a thing that some college administrators can or should handle, for better or worse.
We've got to impress on the victims that they shouldn't be afraid to come forth--stop worrying about credibility. Besides that, it's the right thing to do.
Report it to the actual police--they are equipped to investigate the allegations and, in the vast majority of cases, will do it legally. And they DO.
Rapists are just about the lowest class of criminal (child molesters are the lowest), considered so by not just the average citizen, but by criminals themselves.
And that's why false allegations of atrocity (which this was) should be prosecuted as well. The story was an obvious hoax, as have several others in the news (such as the Duke lacrosse team).
How many lives has this influenced, and not for the better? How would you like to look back on your college years and think "My Senior year was spent defending against a false gang rape charge"? All to "bring awareness to sexual assault on campus"?
Geez, our idiots in the Federal government are still pushing the completely debunked "one in five women are sexually assaulted in college" nonsense, and forcing colleges to change their policies. If that were true, colleges would be the worst place in the country for women instead of one of the safer choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 7, 2015 1:44:03 GMT
there is a nature vs. nurture argument involved as well - I postulate that assuming it is "nature" then if cultural taboos against homosexuality go away, there should be a strong uptick in openly homosexual people as people "come out of the closet" or never go into the closet in the first place - followed by a steady decline - which would indicate a genetic basis for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 7, 2015 1:45:01 GMT
No chance they could ever win but maybe it will send a message to other news media about journalistic integrity. But somehow I doubt that too. what is this journalistic integrity you speak of? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 7, 2015 1:51:20 GMT
Frankly, I've heard of occasionally gang rapes being committed, and you know what? So did everyone else who watched the news. It usually ends with "...and the perpetrators are facing x years in prison". Why? Because it's a heinous crime that every decent person abhors. Half the time it's the perpetrators that give themselves away by talking (or youtubing). No one in their right mind thinks there is no reason to report gang rape. Seriously, I'd love to see the person who thinks otherwise. We've got to tell the colleges that they don't have the ability or right to prosecute serious crime (and gang rape is about as serious as it gets). It's not a thing that some college administrators can or should handle, for better or worse. We've got to impress on the victims that they shouldn't be afraid to come forth--stop worrying about credibility. Besides that, it's the right thing to do. Report it to the actual police--they are equipped to investigate the allegations and, in the vast majority of cases, will do it legally. And they DO. Rapists are just about the lowest class of criminal (child molesters are the lowest), considered so by not just the average citizen, but by criminals themselves. And that's why false allegations of atrocity (which this was) should be prosecuted as well. The story was an obvious hoax, as have several others in the news (such as the Duke lacrosse team). How many lives has this influenced, and not for the better? How would you like to look back on your college years and think "My Senior year was spent defending against a false gang rape charge"? All to "bring awareness to sexual assault on campus"? Geez, our idiots in the Federal government are still pushing the completely debunked "one in five women are sexually assaulted in college" nonsense, and forcing colleges to change their policies. If that were true, colleges would be the worst place in the country for women instead of one of the safer choices. *child molesters are the lowest of the rapists. giving allowance for cases of abject stupidity, rape is not about sexual attraction - it is about dominance and control. it is about the perpetrator being powerful enough to force him or herself on the victim. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 7, 2015 6:58:34 GMT
I have "certificates", and for that, see useless pieces of paper that say I attended the course, in First Aid, and Basic fire fighting, that I have been required to qualify in at various times to do my job.
If I were to discover a road accident with badly injured people, I can waive my piece of paper and shout "Its OK< I am trained to deal with this".....
Yeah, Right.....
In truth, I call 999 summon the pro's and try to stop bleeding and keep the victims alive until they get there.
I am towing a few hundred gallons of highly flammable liquid, and for some reason get a trailer fire... it may have been Brakes, etc.
Its the old adage, if you see the driver running, do try to keep up.
But phone the fire brigade as you run?.
Sexual assault is a heinous crime, ignoring it is worse....
But just what are your responsibilities?.
Now unless you are an actual policeman, or a trained medical person, you full duties are to summon the police, keep the victim comfortable, and wait.
Do NOT try to be the expert here.
One false allegation will bring a world of litigation and the end of your career....
Its up to the professionals to decide if one party just got a little drunk and said yes to something they would soberly have said no, or if its a revenge accusation for a petty spat, its not up to you to investigate.
Exactly, but we have to also explain that the investigation will be thorough, and will investigate everything.
The authorities need to make sure this isnt a false accusation.
This is where the "professionals" earn their qualifications.
Its not that they either do or dont believe you, thats not theirs to decide, its how credible is your evidence, and how much will it stand up in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 7, 2015 13:40:11 GMT
I have "certificates", and for that, see useless pieces of paper that say I attended the course, in First Aid, and Basic fire fighting, that I have been required to qualify in at various times to do my job. If I were to discover a road accident with badly injured people, I can waive my piece of paper and shout "Its OK< I am trained to deal with this"..... Yeah, Right..... In truth, I call 999 summon the pro's and try to stop bleeding and keep the victims alive until they get there. I am towing a few hundred gallons of highly flammable liquid, and for some reason get a trailer fire... it may have been Brakes, etc. Its the old adage, if you see the driver running, do try to keep up. But phone the fire brigade as you run?. Sexual assault is a heinous crime, ignoring it is worse.... But just what are your responsibilities?. Now unless you are an actual policeman, or a trained medical person, you full duties are to summon the police, keep the victim comfortable, and wait. Do NOT try to be the expert here. One false allegation will bring a world of litigation and the end of your career.... Its up to the professionals to decide if one party just got a little drunk and said yes to something they would soberly have said no, or if its a revenge accusation for a petty spat, its not up to you to investigate. Exactly, but we have to also explain that the investigation will be thorough, and will investigate everything. The authorities need to make sure this isnt a false accusation. This is where the "professionals" earn their qualifications. Its not that they either do or dont believe you, thats not theirs to decide, its how credible is your evidence, and how much will it stand up in court. you forgot to mention encouraging the victim to not inadvertently destroy evidence by bathing or throwing away clothing. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Apr 8, 2015 12:50:59 GMT
there is a nature vs. nurture argument involved as well - I postulate that assuming it is "nature" then if cultural taboos against homosexuality go away, there should be a strong uptick in openly homosexual people as people "come out of the closet" or never go into the closet in the first place - followed by a steady decline - which would indicate a genetic basis for it. I'm sure (almost) everyone here knows about Penn & Teller. Penn Jilette, the vocal half of the duo, has some very pointed views and is a self-professed Atheist & Liberatarian. Not surprised to hear him weighing in about Indiana's new law: Penn Jillette: In Indiana, let them eat gay wedding cakeIn a nutshell: People as human beings should be fair to everyone, but people as businesses should be able to choose their clientele without the government directing their business. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 8, 2015 14:04:46 GMT
there is a nature vs. nurture argument involved as well - I postulate that assuming it is "nature" then if cultural taboos against homosexuality go away, there should be a strong uptick in openly homosexual people as people "come out of the closet" or never go into the closet in the first place - followed by a steady decline - which would indicate a genetic basis for it. I'm sure (almost) everyone here knows about Penn & Teller. Penn Jilette, the vocal half of the duo, has some very pointed views and is a self-professed Atheist & Liberatarian. Not surprised to hear him weighing in about Indiana's new law: Penn Jillette: In Indiana, let them eat gay wedding cakeIn a nutshell: People as human beings should be fair to everyone, but people as businesses should be able to choose their clientele without the government directing their business. the fundamental argument is: should Jenny McCarthy ask him to make an appearance promoting her antivaxx movement, would he decline on a basis of his beliefs? (and it sounds like he would)) in all of these cases, when you dig through the hyperbole, they are perfectly willing to serve customers, it is just when you ask them to do something special that conflicts with their beliefs that they want to be able to opt out. if someone asks me to wire a house in all 15 amp general circuits, I will refuse. it isn't illegal - I just believe it is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Apr 8, 2015 14:18:59 GMT
I'm sure (almost) everyone here knows about Penn & Teller. Penn Jilette, the vocal half of the duo, has some very pointed views and is a self-professed Atheist & Liberatarian. Not surprised to hear him weighing in about Indiana's new law: Penn Jillette: In Indiana, let them eat gay wedding cakeIn a nutshell: People as human beings should be fair to everyone, but people as businesses should be able to choose their clientele without the government directing their business. the fundamental argument is: should Jenny McCarthy ask him to make an appearance promoting her antivaxx movement, would he decline on a basis of his beliefs? (and it sounds like he would)) in all of these cases, when you dig through the hyperbole, they are perfectly willing to serve customers, it is just when you ask them to do something special that conflicts with their beliefs that they want to be able to opt out. if someone asks me to wire a house in all 15 amp general circuits, I will refuse. it isn't illegal - I just believe it is wrong. I would say, based on what I've read/watched featuring Penn, his arguments are based on logic and reasoning. He knows that being around gay people won't make you gay. So, in most circumstances, this would be a non-issue. If a baker refused to make me a cake because my name is Dan, I wouldn't run to the media and make a big deal out of it...I'd cuss him out, flip him off, and leave to go to the next bakery on the street. With you & the wiring scenario, while you know the law says it's okay to fulfill their request, your business sense & experience tell you it's a bad idea and would probably cost you in the long run. You have certain standards that you want to uphold. Business owners should be able to run their businesses with common sense and good faith. If they choose to be stupid or nonsensical in their standards and practices, the customers will let them know and their business won't last very long. Big brother needs to back off and let things develop. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 8, 2015 15:03:15 GMT
the fundamental argument is: should Jenny McCarthy ask him to make an appearance promoting her antivaxx movement, would he decline on a basis of his beliefs? (and it sounds like he would)) in all of these cases, when you dig through the hyperbole, they are perfectly willing to serve customers, it is just when you ask them to do something special that conflicts with their beliefs that they want to be able to opt out. if someone asks me to wire a house in all 15 amp general circuits, I will refuse. it isn't illegal - I just believe it is wrong. I would say, based on what I've read/watched featuring Penn, his arguments are based on logic and reasoning. He knows that being around gay people won't make you gay. So, in most circumstances, this would be a non-issue. If a baker refused to make me a cake because my name is Dan, I wouldn't run to the media and make a big deal out of it...I'd cuss him out, flip him off, and leave to go to the next bakery on the street. With you & the wiring scenario, while you know the law says it's okay to fulfill their request, your business sense & experience tell you it's a bad idea and would probably cost you in the long run. You have certain standards that you want to uphold. Business owners should be able to run their businesses with common sense and good faith. If they choose to be stupid or nonsensical in their standards and practices, the customers will let them know and their business won't last very long. Big brother needs to back off and let things develop. that is my thinking - that there is a difference between withholding services and withholding custom services. withholding services is bad, withholding custom services for philosophical reasons may be defensible. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Apr 8, 2015 15:08:14 GMT
I would say, based on what I've read/watched featuring Penn, his arguments are based on logic and reasoning. He knows that being around gay people won't make you gay. So, in most circumstances, this would be a non-issue. If a baker refused to make me a cake because my name is Dan, I wouldn't run to the media and make a big deal out of it...I'd cuss him out, flip him off, and leave to go to the next bakery on the street. With you & the wiring scenario, while you know the law says it's okay to fulfill their request, your business sense & experience tell you it's a bad idea and would probably cost you in the long run. You have certain standards that you want to uphold. Business owners should be able to run their businesses with common sense and good faith. If they choose to be stupid or nonsensical in their standards and practices, the customers will let them know and their business won't last very long. Big brother needs to back off and let things develop. that is my thinking - that there is a difference between withholding services and withholding custom services. withholding services is bad, withholding custom services for philosophical reasons may be defensible. If I hired you to install a 220A main and wire the house using only 14 gauge wire, I'd completely understand if you told me to take me a hike. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Apr 8, 2015 15:46:41 GMT
I'd love to see the response to the antivaxx nuts if they asked to hire him for an appearance.
Where does conscience enter into the equation when refusing service?
I'm also getting tired of hearing the word "hate" thrown around. There is a part of religious people who honestly believe that cooperating with a same sex ceremony is being complicit in committing a dangerous sin. It's akin to giving an alcoholic a drink, or a fix to a junkie. They hate the sin, not the sinner--to them, refusing service is actually an act of love from their viewpoint.
Now, we may not agree with that, but we have to recognize a seriously held belief as what it is--and not attribute it to "h8ers".
That's not to say there aren't haters out there--just that we can't truly know what's in a person's mind.
For that matter, here is a genuine question:
Just about every service business I see has a sign tucked away somewhere, reading "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". In this climate, what exactly does that mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Apr 8, 2015 16:28:05 GMT
I'd love to see the response to the antivaxx nuts if they asked to hire him for an appearance. Where does conscience enter into the equation when refusing service? I'm also getting tired of hearing the word "hate" thrown around. There is a part of religious people who honestly believe that cooperating with a same sex ceremony is being complicit in committing a dangerous sin. It's akin to giving an alcoholic a drink, or a fix to a junkie. They hate the sin, not the sinner--to them, refusing service is actually an act of love from their viewpoint. Now, we may not agree with that, but we have to recognize a seriously held belief as what it is--and not attribute it to "h8ers". That's not to say there aren't haters out there--just that we can't truly know what's in a person's mind. For that matter, here is a genuine question: Just about every service business I see has a sign tucked away somewhere, reading "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". In this climate, what exactly does that mean? Back in the day, that sign was intended to keep disruptions and troublemakers out of an establishment. If you come in to find or create trouble, I can toss you out on your ear. A drunk comes into the bar fully loaded, the bartender will remove him. It was meant to discourage certain populations and behaviors within the establishments. The original intent of those signs was not to covertly display prejudice or discrimination. Nowadays, everything is left to interpretation and personal opinion. So, somebody looking to get attention could say that sign is intended to keep him/her out based on gender/race/ethnicity/orientation. The world has become overly sensitive and overtaken with political correctness. I'm going to open a nightclub. I think I'll name it... The Blackhawk - can't do that, it's inflammatory & prejudicial towards Native Americans Okay, how about... The Whitehawk - can't do that, that's elitist and exclusionary to other races Redhawk? nope, sounds prejudicial to Native Americans Yellowhawk? nope, insulting to Asians Greenhawk? nope, sounds preferential to environmentalists Bluehawk? not recommended, people will say you condone choking other creatures Well, how about The Hawk?? Nope, it will feel exclusionary to other bird species. Okay okay, I guess I'll just call it The Bar... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 8, 2015 16:39:12 GMT
I'd love to see the response to the antivaxx nuts if they asked to hire him for an appearance. Where does conscience enter into the equation when refusing service? I'm also getting tired of hearing the word "hate" thrown around. There is a part of religious people who honestly believe that cooperating with a same sex ceremony is being complicit in committing a dangerous sin. It's akin to giving an alcoholic a drink, or a fix to a junkie. They hate the sin, not the sinner--to them, refusing service is actually an act of love from their viewpoint. Now, we may not agree with that, but we have to recognize a seriously held belief as what it is--and not attribute it to "h8ers". That's not to say there aren't haters out there--just that we can't truly know what's in a person's mind. For that matter, here is a genuine question: Just about every service business I see has a sign tucked away somewhere, reading "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". In this climate, what exactly does that mean? Back in the day, that sign was intended to keep disruptions and troublemakers out of an establishment. If you come in to find or create trouble, I can toss you out on your ear. A drunk comes into the bar fully loaded, the bartender will remove him. It was meant to discourage certain populations and behaviors within the establishments. The original intent of those signs was not to covertly display prejudice or discrimination. Nowadays, everything is left to interpretation and personal opinion. So, somebody looking to get attention could say that sign is intended to keep him/her out based on gender/race/ethnicity/orientation. The world has become overly sensitive and overtaken with political correctness. I'm going to open a nightclub. I think I'll name it... The Blackhawk - can't do that, it's inflammatory & prejudicial towards Native Americans Okay, how about... The Whitehawk - can't do that, that's elitist and exclusionary to other races Redhawk? nope, sounds prejudicial to Native Americans Yellowhawk? nope, insulting to Asians Greenhawk? nope, sounds preferential to environmentalists Bluehawk? not recommended, people will say you condone choking other creatures Well, how about The Hawk?? Nope, it will feel exclusionary to other bird species. Okay okay, I guess I'll just call it The Bar... oh, so you're pro-lawyer, are you?  |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Apr 8, 2015 16:45:04 GMT
I'm going to open a nightclub. I think I'll name it... The Blackhawk - can't do that, it's inflammatory & prejudicial towards Native Americans Okay, how about... The Whitehawk - can't do that, that's elitist and exclusionary to other races Redhawk? nope, sounds prejudicial to Native Americans Yellowhawk? nope, insulting to Asians Greenhawk? nope, sounds preferential to environmentalists Bluehawk? not recommended, people will say you condone choking other creatures Well, how about The Hawk?? Nope, it will feel exclusionary to other bird species. Okay okay, I guess I'll just call it The Bar... It's interesting that the Government gets all upset that a football team owner calls his team the Redskins yet our government has Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles and the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was named Operation Geronimo. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 8, 2015 16:47:32 GMT
I'm going to open a nightclub. I think I'll name it... The Blackhawk - can't do that, it's inflammatory & prejudicial towards Native Americans Okay, how about... The Whitehawk - can't do that, that's elitist and exclusionary to other races Redhawk? nope, sounds prejudicial to Native Americans Yellowhawk? nope, insulting to Asians Greenhawk? nope, sounds preferential to environmentalists Bluehawk? not recommended, people will say you condone choking other creatures Well, how about The Hawk?? Nope, it will feel exclusionary to other bird species. Okay okay, I guess I'll just call it The Bar... It's interesting that the Government gets all upset that a football team owner calls his team the Redskins yet our government has Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles and the operation to kill Osama bin Laden was named Operation Geronimo. I don't think it was the government raising a fuss. what I find interesting is that the fuss over native american symbology in sporting teams usually peaks while such a team is in the news - for doing well. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Apr 8, 2015 17:07:07 GMT
|
|
