21

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread

« Last post by Benjamin Franklin on November 27, 2023, 03:19:44 AM »

22

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 02:27:54 AM »

There are no numbers or percentages in that link. Do you seriously believe that a 52 year old woman who you pick to rape tomorrow in a department store dressing room will have a low likelihood of screaming to stop or screaming for help?

There may be "many" women in aggregate totality who do not scream when they are raped against their will, but this is not a denial that the great majority of women who are physically attacked and raped do scream. The article is an explanation for why some do not scream, and makes no effort to deny that most do scream.

Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case. Because the arguments here are based on making excuses, it substantially weakens the case. It does not strengthen your case to argue based on a series of excuses.

23

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on November 27, 2023, 02:12:15 AM »

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable.

It's quite a lot more probable than you think.  Or don't you think that being paralyzed by fear is a thing?

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

Sure, they're flimsy excuses...   Until you look at the psychology and biology of what happens in the brain when someone is experiencing a highly stressful situation, like being raped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/

24

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on November 27, 2023, 01:34:22 AM »

You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

25

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on November 23, 2023, 03:22:40 PM »

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

That's exactly why nobody who truly meant it would ever describe what they were doing as a scheme. It's just not how criminals talk.

We have two people who came up with a premeditated plan

Accusing the President of the United States of rape is a serious matter, and one that I'd expect to see some premeditation over.

to hurt Trump politically because they didn't like his politics

The excerpt you quoted says nothing about them being motivated by their dislike of Trump's politics. They certainly wanted to hurt Trump politically - because of the rape.

The friend is also an alibi who verified that she was told about the rape at the time it happened.

Presumably that's the whole reason Carroll contacted her in the first place, because she was there and she knew about it. There's no suspicious "also" here that needs an explanation. You're basically pointing to someone already involved in the case and saying "What are the odds that this person involved in the case...would turn out to be involved in the case?"

Jean Carroll did not scream when it happened.

Many rape victims don't. Trauma and paralysis often take hold during such an encounter, as well as the fear that their rapist will retaliate against them if they scream or resist.

She did not tell the police.

Many rape victims don't. They often fear that they won't be believed by the police, or feel ashamed that they ever "let" it happen to them.

She did not write about it in her ongoing diary that she was keeping.

Again, shame and embarrassment can lead to rape victims trying to "omit" the incident by pretending it never happened, which would lead to them not mentioning it in a diary. Not that you'd even believe it happened if she had written about it in her diary.

The first we hear she started speaking about it is in a book she wrote shortly after plotting with her friend on a scheme to get Trump.

Yes, she wrote her book and sued Trump after he was elected. I repeat, this line of argument only sounds suspicious if you don't take the time to think about it. Of course a rape victim who had up to that moment kept quiet could be compelled to speak out after their rapist had become the most powerful person in the world. Of course a rape victim could be more invested in stopping their rapist from being the most powerful person in the world than in seeing their rapist as a private citizen be punished for their crime.

And yes, she discussed and made plans with her friend who partially corroborated her story before she took the momentous step of accusing the President of the United States of raping her.

A jury, too, also assessed this and rejected the claim that she was raped.

I don't know how you can in good faith keep repeating this point while completely ignoring the rest of the story. Carroll said she was raped, and the jury disagreed and said she was sexually abused. Is this a significant repudiation of her story? I would say no, but setting that subjective point aside, we then have Trump's side of the story. Trump said that nothing between him and Carroll ever happened. The jury disagreed and said that not only had Trump sexually abused Carroll, but that he had been lying and defaming her as a liar when he denied the incident happened. Who comes out of this exchange looking better? The woman whose charge of rape was downgraded to sexual abuse, or the man whose claim of complete innocence was downgraded to being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation?

In the end we are supposed to believe that in a 1996 department store a 50 year old billionaire named Donald Trump, who could and did get models much younger than himself, could not resist forcing himself upon a 52 year old liberal sex advice columnist named E. Jean Carroll. 

Men of all ages, appearances, and occupations have committed rape, and women of all ages, appearances, and occupations have been the victim of rape. Rape is an act of power, not passion. That being said, though, it was amusing during the trial when Trump first insisted that Carroll wasn't his type, mixed up Carroll with his ex-wife Marla Maples, and was forced to admit that Maples (and presumably Carroll too, by extension) was in fact his type.

26

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Action80 on November 21, 2023, 10:02:14 AM »

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

^markjo is seriously claiming this.

Unbelievable.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Tom Bishop on November 21, 2023, 03:16:03 AM »

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

You are supposed to be arguing why it's not a red flag, not merely how you can stretch your imagination to see if you can make it work with the rape narrative with creative interpretations.

We have two people who came up with a premeditated plan to hurt Trump politically because they didn't like his politics. The friend is also an alibi who verified that she was told about the rape at the time it happened.

Jean Carroll did not scream when it happened. She did not tell the police. She did not write about it in her ongoing diary that she was keeping. The first we hear she started speaking about it is in a book she wrote shortly after plotting with her friend on a scheme to get Trump.

A jury, too, also assessed this and rejected the claim that she was raped.

All of this exists as one red flag after another, and is counter to the idea that she was raped. In the end we are supposed to believe that in a 1996 department store a 50 year old billionaire named Donald Trump, who could and did get models much younger than himself, could not resist forcing himself upon a 52 year old liberal sex advice columnist named E. Jean Carroll. 

28

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by markjo on November 20, 2023, 11:15:56 PM »

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

29

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by Action80 on November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM »

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« Last post by honk on November 20, 2023, 04:09:15 PM »

There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.