[Lord Dave]

I'm with JSS and Honk, Rushy: Accusing someone, especially someone with power, of sexual assault is pretty much a death sentence for your life as you know it.  Your reputation is ruined.  You may get death threats depending on how public it is and how powerful the man (because its always a man) is.

Like if I claimed you sexually assaulted me, odds are no one would know or care except the people I told.  The police may investigate but without evidence or witnesses, its not going anywhere.

Teenagers who get date raped in college aren't victims, they're sluts.  The god damn US armed forces has a ton of rape cases that go unreported because if you report a rape, you get thrown out.  Why?  Because you're a woman trying to sully the name of good boys.

So yeah.  No consequences?  What world do you live in?

[Dr David Thork]

It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations.

Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.

It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people

Whoa whoa whoa. faux-reasonable? 

It is very reasonable. You can't say 20 years later when the guy is rich and you'll get a huge win-fall and able to sell your story to Oprah and the Washington Post ... "that man raped me." It's not fair. Accuse at the time it happened or STFU. When the evidence is fresh and everyone's memory of the event is still at the forefront of their mind. I'm now 42. If a girl I knew from from Uni accused me of rape tomorrow, all I'd be able to confirm is if I knew them and maybe if I slept with them. I certainly wouldn't know of a night we went to a club or a particular conversation. That's why there is a statue of limitations. Because over 20 years, not only does my recollection of events get fuzzy ... but so would my accusers. You need to make the accusation immediately. Else did it even bother you? If it did, why did you not say anything until after I became President? Statue of limitations is good law making.

to fall back on 'respectable' fields, even when they aren't relevant. It's the same guiding principle that sees people crying 'free speech, first amendment!' in what should be a casual discussion between friends. If you're in a situation where you have to talk legality and laws as opposed to simply your opinion of an individual, then you're in a very dicey situation. It's a way to appear as though you have the high ground while having very little to stand on indeed.
Laws aren't synonymous with morality. In many cases they're actively not meant to be an accurate judge of someone's character. What a court of law would make of someone should not necessarily be the same as what an individual concludes.

Laws are synonymous with society. Murder bad. Murder illegal. Rape bad. Rape illegal. Buying a loaf of bread fine. Buying a loaf of bread legal. Law reflects social norms. Hence Sodomy used to be illegal, today it isn't.

[JRowe]

It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations.

Legal and personal consequences aren't the same thing.

It seems to be an alarmingly common tactic of faux-reasonable people

Whoa whoa whoa. faux-reasonable? 

Absolutely. Those that want the appearance of reasonability by appealing to high-profile topics, but lack any actual solid basis. It's the same kind of thinking that sees REers use their 'do you think you know better than Einstein?' (keeping on-brand with the forum). Appeal to something people respect and associate yourself with something perceived as reasonable, rather than be reasonable yourself.

Court-case legality and personal morality are very different beasts. Take fruit of the poisoned tree; you can have solid evidence someone is a serial murder-rapist, but if that evidence was obtained in a questionable fashion, it's inadmissible. If legality was all we were concerned with, you could know for a fact someone was a monster, but be expected to forgive them and act as though they weren't. Courtroom legality like this exists to try and ensure investigations are carried out in a way that doesn't give unjustified power to every Tom, Dick and Plod, not to tell a private citizen how to live their life. If you know something that's inadmissible in court, you should still adhere to it when you live your life.

Do you even know how legality works? The degree of proof required varies even depending on the crime they're accused of. You can be liable in civil court but not guilty in criminal court, how then should one consider a situation like that?
If you find yourself needing to appeal to high-brow 'statute of limitations,' 'innocent until proven guilty,' 'free speech,' as opposed to just talking about the matter at hand, it's a pretty clear indication your goal is in appearing reasonable as opposed to actually being reasonable. Yes, those things exist, those things are true, but no one lives their life as though every decision is a trial. Bringing in fundamental laws of the land to talk about personal points of view, as opposed to criminal action, is like invoking a tsunami to water your houseplant. Someone might get the idea your goal is something other than the houseplant.

[Dr David Thork]

That was pretty incoherent.

But ultimately, if someone commits a crime against you, it is not unreasonable to say the time to report this is immediately. Not in 20 years time when DNA evidence is gone, everyone has forgotten the event and you boiled it down to a he said she said.

All these women coming out of the woodwork 20 years later are opportunists. Not victims.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't see how belief can itself be interpreted as moral or immoral. We don't exactly choose what we find to be compelling or sincere, or what we see as inauthentic or unbelievable.

You absolutely can choose to act in a moral or immoral way. When it comes to beliefs, the process is no different than acknowledging any other cognitive bias - you realise you have it, and you consciously evaluate your findings before opening your mouth about them.

Your defense here is identical to that of any other prejudiced person. After all, if I intrinsically believe that people who look different from me are inferior, there's just nothing I can do about it. It's not like I can choose my biases, right?

Once again: thank Allah you're virtually alone in thinking like this.

[AATW]

by complete coincidence

No.

suddenly and independently

No!

JSS has already dealt with this but it isn't a coincidence and they didn't do it independently.
Trying to go up against a rich and powerful man must be incredibly intimidating. And it's a crime in which the victim can feel deep shame and not want to have to relive it, especially when they know they're going to get dragged through the mud by a powerful legal team and probably in the press. When one person has the courage to come forward it can embolden others, this happens all the time. And when that happens it does add to the credibility of all of them, it indicates a pattern of behaviour.

And as I've said when you add in his own comments about his daughter, his boasts about going into dressing rooms when involved in Miss Teen USA. The general way he talks about women. Posted this to you before, but exhibit A, your honour



Now, fine. It's a jokey comment in a jokey conversation. But many a true word spoken in jest and it fits with the way he generally talks and behaves towards women.

With some people when they start getting accused there is shock, with others the reaction is "yeah, that figures".
I'd suggest with Trump it's the latter. Doesn't make him guilty, but I wouldn't be the least surprised if he is.

[Pete Svarrior]

Doesn't make him guilty

All of this rambling just to agree with me. Sheesh, you must not value my time.

[AATW]

Doesn't make him guilty

All of this rambling just to agree with me. Sheesh, you must not value my time.

Well, I don't. Obviously.

And yes, we agree about that, just not about all the other stuff which you mentioned and I responded to.
Hope that helps to clarify

[J-Man]

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up.”

Barack Obama Has "Privately Expressed Grave Concerns" About Joe Biden's 2020 White House Run

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/barack-obama-has-privately-expressed-grave-concerns-about-joe-bidens-2020-white-house-run

[honk]

Once again: thank Allah you're virtually alone in thinking like this.

All right, it looks like you're more interested in trying to provoke me than sincerely debating the issues involved, so I don't think I'm going to bother keeping this discussion going.

“Don’t underestimate Joe’s ability to f–k things up.”

Barack Obama Has "Privately Expressed Grave Concerns" About Joe Biden's 2020 White House Run

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/barack-obama-has-privately-expressed-grave-concerns-about-joe-bidens-2020-white-house-run

Holy shit, the author of this stupid article actually uses the handle "Tyler Durden" and a picture of the character? Is he twelve years old? I mean, I know I should be focusing on the content of the article, but there's really not much to it. Just a few mined quotes from a Politico article to support a narrative that Obama thinks Biden is a moron and an incredibly far-fetched prediction that Biden will soon be replaced as the Democratic candidate. I just can't get over the Tyler Durden thing. That's amazing.

[Pete Svarrior]

All right, it looks like you're more interested in trying to provoke me than sincerely debating the issues involved

There is no debate here. You're being immoral. It deserves calling out. I'll call it out again the next time you pull the "accusation = guilt" crap.

And yes, we agree about that, just not about all the other stuff which you mentioned and I responded to.

What stuff? The things you disagreed with were rhetorical questions devices, written out to be just about as disagreeable as possible. I mean, congratulations, I guess?

I was asking what the possible motive might be. JSS provided a plausible answer, which I didn't question further. You say that "JSS has already dealt with this", but you quote a post I wrote before his response. Are you sure you didn't respond to an old post by mistake?

[AATW]

What stuff?

All the stuff I wrote in my posts about the things I disagreed with you about in your posts.
Honk makes the assertion that the number of accusations makes them more credible. You disagree. I agree. It does.
You called it an ad populum fallacy, it isn't an example of that. I have explained why.
You also said that they all came forward at the same time by coincidence. Not true, I have explained why.

You also said

it would be utter insanity to just take their accusations as fact with no proof

And there we agree.

But, it would also be insanity not to look at the general way he talks about women, including his own daughter, and the things he has admitted to doing when assessing these allegations and the likelihood of them being true.

In that context my gut feel is that yeah, he probably has done some stuff which he could be convicted for. I don't think he ever will be though and I in the spirit of libel - and knowing a bit about what you should allow people to say publicly on a forum like this - I should make clear that this is only my personal opinion and not based on anything other than circumstantial evidence

[Rama Set]

I dunno but it seems like saying accusers are credible is looooong way from saying someone is guilty. I wouldn’t say Trump has sexually assaulted anyone but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if at least one of those women is telling the truth and I would think it likely that at least one of their stories is true. That being said, he isn’t guilty under a criminal standard, which is extraordinarily high because it’s thought to be the only ethical way to justify the State removing liberty from a citizen. I agree with that but “balance of probabilities” is used in civil courts to determine if a tort has occurred between two citizens and is much applicable to what is being discussed here.

[Pete Svarrior]

I wouldn’t say Trump has sexually assaulted anyone

That is all I'm saying. Those who want to take it a step further, to me, are ridiculously morally bankrupt.

[Rama Set]

I wouldn’t say Trump has sexually assaulted anyone

That is all I'm saying. Those who want to take it a step further, to me, are ridiculously morally bankrupt.

I never took Honk to be saying that either.  We all know I am a careless reader and miss stuff occasionally, but I only saw him saying that the accusers were credible.

[Pete Svarrior]

We all know I am a careless reader and miss stuff occasionally, but I only saw him saying that the accusers were credible.

I'll grant you that he was very careful with his wording. I have my suspicions regarding his intent. Of course, if he agrees with you and me, there is no problem.

[jimbaker7773]

I said no such thing.

I said there were no allegations by women, in the context of allegations of sexual abuse, and you know it.

What woman would lodge an allegation of sexual abuse/harassment against a noted homosexual?

[honk]

There is no debate here.

If you're not willing to debate, then you shouldn't be posting in a debate forum.

You're being immoral. It deserves calling out. I'll call it out again the next time you pull the "accusation = guilt" crap.

There are no "call-out" or "when they deserve it" exceptions to the rule against personal attacks. Your virtue-signaling and lecturing about how terrible I am belongs in AR, not here.

[Pete Svarrior]

If you're not willing to debate, then you shouldn't be posting in a debate forum.

I agree. Luckily, we're in PR&S.

There are no "call-out" or "when they deserve it" exceptions to the rule against personal attacks.

If you believe that my comments on the immoral behaviour you promote here is a personal attack against you, then I guess I'll back down. Although, I assure you that there's nothing personal about it - I'd point out the same logical flaws in this reasoning if it were someone else spreading it.

Nonetheless, you've made yourself clear. I'm dropping this.

[Roundy]

It actually precludes them from further litigation under the statue of limitations.