Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Do NOT Believe Her

    From FBI statistics, claims of rape are 4 times more likely to be false than other serious crimes:

    As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies “unfound” the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

    A women claiming rape or attempted rape by a man should NOT be believed without corroborating evidence.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...pe-allegations
    Quote Originally Posted by LINK
    Even strong advocates for rape victims admit that false accusations sometimes occur. The real debate is regarding the frequency of these false claims. Some suggest that only 2% of rape accusations are false (a rate that is similar to that of non-sex offenses), while others state that the rate is higher (e.g., 8%). According to a few sources, the rate is significantly higher (e.g., 40%).
    While doing research for the Judge K discussion thread, I did come across a research paper published in a law journal, I think it was the source of the 40% we see in other areas such as the link above.
    from my memory, it was discussing the high rate at which cases are found to be false in the system, and that it even included many instances where the woman had physical signs of a struggle.
    In other words, women were making false claims of rape, and then (presumably) beat themselves up or otherwise produced bodily injury. It wasn't saying that it was a high %, it was just noting that there were some extremes out there. (will keep looking for the link and post if I find it)
    To serve man.

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA
    Posts
    388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul
    From FBI statistics, claims of rape are 4 times more likely to be false than other serious crimes:

    As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies “unfound” the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

    A women claiming rape or attempted rape by a man should NOT be believed without corroborating evidence.
    The problem with this stance is that it further discourages people who have been sexually assaulted from reporting. As sexual assaults are under-reported to authorities (which some sources indicate as high as 2 out of every 3 assaults are not reported), we cannot conclusively state that the default position should be to distrust the testimony of the accuser.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Actually that is the default position in system that assumes the innocence of the accused until proven otherwise.

    Taking on a "believe the accuser" position as a default shifts to a " prove you are innocent" system of judment.
    To serve man.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Let me get this straight...

    If accusations or rape are false 8% of the time, we should not believe accusations of rape 100% of the time?

    That seems rather foolish. Or possibly simply a blanket defense of rapists for the sake of solidarity or convenience.

    In truth, the wise course with any accusation is to do a thorough job of investigating the claim to better determine if it is indeed true or false. We should treat every claim as if it could be true until such time as we have firm evidence it is. And we should treat the accused as if they could well be inocent until such time as we can determine if they are or not.

    Presumption of innocence is a rule for the courtroom and for the law. When in an investigation we try not to make any such presumptions one way or the other. Instead, we run down possibilities.

    In social situations, we all have our own methods and forms of judgment. I tend to trust but challenge. AKA I don't discount any claim automatically, but I am skeptical enough to dig deeper before making a judgement.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. Thanks CowboyX thanked for this post
  7. #6
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Bare assertion should not be believed. Sure you investigate that should go with out saying.
    However if you believe that presumption of innocence is just then one must act as though the claim is false.
    We are rarely put on the position of investigator. I am not investigating accusations, like those against judge k. We don't pay prosecuters to assume innocence.. so there is a roll for that assumption. For us in our position we should assume it is false until evidence is produced to prove it true.

    Also, 8% appears to be the low ball, it could be as high as 40%. Which is nothing to sneez at.
    To serve man.

  8. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,155
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    A women claiming rape or attempted rape by a man should NOT be believed without corroborating evidence.
    Does does forcible rape include attempted rape?

    ---------- Post added at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...pe-allegations
    In other words, women were making false claims of rape, and then (presumably) beat themselves up or otherwise produced bodily injury. It wasn't saying that it was a high %, it was just noting that there were some extremes out there. (will keep looking for the link and post if I find it)
    Is that the only scenario? Couldn't it have really happeend then the woman changed her story to keep her boyfriend/husband out of jail?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Bare assertion should not be believed. Sure you investigate that should go with out saying.
    I keep telling that to theists and they never listen.

    However, if you believe that presumption of innocence is just then one must act as though the claim is false.
    I don't think it is just actually. It's only useful as a safeguard against state power. It's a good standard for limiting actions that can't be rescinded and for protecting basic liberty. Those qualities don't make it just. Justice would be based on the truth, and the truth may well by you are guilty as sin even if you were never even accused of anything.

    Justice demands we give equal weight to both the accuser and the accused. Prudence is a different matter though, prudence says we should be certain before we act.


    We are rarely put on the position of investigator. I am not investigating accusations, like those against judge k. We don't pay prosecutors to assume innocence.. so there is a role for that assumption. For us, in our position, we should assume it is false until evidence is produced to prove it true.
    I strongly dissagree. We shoud reserve judgement because we are largely ignorant, not favor one claim or the other.

    Also, 8% appears to be the low ball, it could be as high as 40%. Which is nothing to sneeze at?
    It could be as high as 100% it could be raining cheese. The argument presented was 8% and I responded. While people do sometimes falsely accuse others of crimes, it is rather the exception rather than the rule. We should neither discont it, nor rely on it.

    MT: You clearly have a strong bias on these issues, it bleeds through on any topic relating to men and women. You are consistently distrustful of women's motives and women's abilities.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  10. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    - reserve judgment.
    We can not act in a neutral way. We will either act as though they are guilty or act as though they are innocnt.

    -- my bias against women
    I think rather that I have stood consistently on a principle of Justice that I have forwarded in several threads. It is only woman s issues that have been the topic and those who opposed my position typically have no actionable standard of Justice.
    You claim prudence, but base it on pure emotion and gut feelings.true prudence points to evidence. Which is nothing more than I have demanded.

    --True justice.

    Justice is defined partly in that no thing is established except in the face of two or three witnesses(which means lines of evidence). No one should be punished or held as guilty without that.

    --favore one claim
    The accused is not making a claim inherently. They are denying a claim. This places the burden on the accuser to prove the claim which is a bias as we do not or should not hold both to the same standard. We do not say " you must prove your denial". The innocent should be able to remain silent unless the accuser has first met their burden of proof.
    So I strongly disagree with your stated opposition her and hold it to be prejudicial to the innocent. Which is not justice or logical.

    -- it could be 100%
    Well that was hyperbaly on your part, but the support I quoted noted that there is evidence for 40% number. Perhaps that is too damaging to your positions assumptions and thus you must ignore it. But I want to note that I have offered evidence of that number. So your dismissal is not based on reason but convienance
    To serve man.

  11. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,208
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    From FBI statistics, claims of rape are 4 times more likely to be false than other serious crimes:
    As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies “unfound” the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

    A women claiming rape or attempted rape by a man should NOT be believed without corroborating evidence.
    The unfounded / baseless rate of complaints was 2 out of every 100 reported crimes. The unfounded / baseless rate of complaints of forcible rate is 8 out of every 100 reported crimes. 92% of the time the report is not deemed as a baseless and is investigated. So while you're "4 times" number seems significant, it's hardly significant at all.
    Last edited by snackboy; October 24th, 2018 at 10:25 AM.
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    - reserve judgment.
    We can not act in a neutral way. We will either act as though they are guilty or act as though they are innocent.
    That's not true in most of these cases. You and I have no need to determine anyone's guilt or innocence. We are not in a position to pass judgment on anyone, offer assistance, etc. There are many times in life when we face great uncertainty. We employ strategies like hedging our bets, reserving action, doing furter inquiry etc... To say we have to act as if we know the truth is simply wrong.

    -- my bias against women
    I think rather that I have stood consistently on a principle of Justice that I have forwarded in several threads. It is only woman s issues that have been the topic and those who opposed my position typically have no actionable standard of Justice.
    You claim prudence, but base it on pure emotion and gut feelings.true prudence points to evidence. Which is nothing more than I have demanded.
    I don't see where I've expressed any "pure emotion" or used such in my arguments. You are just projecting I think.

    Is it just for a man to commit a crime and get away with no punishment? No, it is not. Is it just for someone to be punished for a crime they did not commit? No, it is not.

    Yet both of these things happen in our criminal justice system. We have decided that the latter is a greater injustice than the former, so when faced with an imperfect system, we have errored towards avoiding the latter and accepting the former. It doesn't mean that the system is perfectly just, only that is as just as we can reasonably manage for pragmatic purposes.

    Innocent, until proven guilty, is not just statement in and of itself, it is a compromise position that accepts some level of injustice to avoid possible greater injustice.

    Justice is defined partly in that nothing is established except in the face of two or three witnesses(which means lines of evidence). No one should be punished or held as guilty without that.
    So if I commit a crime, but there is only one witness to it. Then it is just for me to get away wtih thtat crime without punishment? I stronly disagree. I think if I commit a crime, the only truly just outcome is that I face the prescribed (and presumably proportional) punishment. Your "definition" of justice is bunko.

    The accused is not making a claim inherently. They are denying a claim.
    Of course they make a claim. They claim not to have done this, and someone else claims they have. Both parties have a truth claim.

    Now, for us to take action of some kind, we need to have some level of asurity that we are acting on the truth of the situation, so we need to do our best to evaluate which claim is true. Certainly, the person alledging wrongdoing should be the first to step forward, for if there is no such cliam, we need not be interessted. But once that claim is made, then an evaluation has to happen. Certainly it falls on both parties to put forward evidence of their claim in so much as we can.

    When it is a criminal trial we do set a high standard for the prosecution for the reasons i outlined. But those resons are not really about doing perfect justice. They are pragmatic concerns about avoiding unwanted consiquences and other injustices. I support them, but I understand they don't represent perfect justice.

    - it could be 100%
    Well that was hyperbole on your part, but the support I quoted noted that there is evidence for 40% number. Perhaps that is too damaging to your positions assumptions and thus you must ignore it. But I want to note that I have offered evidence of that number. So your dismissal is not based on reason but convienance
    It doesn't damage my possition at all. Even if it were 50/50 the best course is to learn more before making a judgement rather than to automatically choose one side or the other. The fact that the odds are weihed heavily in favor of the accusation bieng true is only damaging to the possition that we should automatically side with the possition more likely to be false. That's just stupid.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  13. #12
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,569
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    From FBI statistics, claims of rape are 4 times more likely to be false than other serious crimes:

    As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies “unfound” the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

    A women claiming rape or attempted rape by a man should NOT be believed without corroborating evidence.
    Agreed: In the absence of corroborating evidence, do NOT believe her.

    Do NOT believe HIM, either.

    And do NOT DISBELIEVE her.

    Go where the evidence leads.

  14. Likes Sigfried, Freund, Squatch347 liked this post
  15. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    That's not true in most of these cases. You and I have no need to determine anyone's guilt or innocence. We are not in a position to pass judgment on anyone, offer assistance, etc.
    If we don't call for punishment, then we are acting as though they are innocent.
    It can't be helped.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    There are many times in life when we face great uncertainty. We employ strategies like hedging our bets, reserving action, doing furter inquiry etc... To say we have to act as if we know the truth is simply wrong.
    It is wrong, and it is also not what I said.
    I did not claim that we act as though we know the truth.
    I said our actions will be in line with an assumption of guilt, or an assumption of innocense.

    If you call for judgment or action based on the claim against the person.. then we are acting as though they are guilty.
    If we choose not to act, and call for judgment and action based on the claim, then we are acting as though they are innocent. (legal investigation asside.. I'm talking our roll).

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I don't see where I've expressed any "pure emotion" or used such in my arguments. You are just projecting I think.
    Nope, sometimes a sigar is just a sigar.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Is it just for a man to commit a crime and get away with no punishment?
    In my world view that never happens, we are all judged. So.. this is not a valid point against me.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    No, it is not. Is it just for someone to be punished for a crime they did not commit? No, it is not.
    This does happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Yet both of these things happen in our criminal justice system. We have decided that the latter is a greater injustice than the former, so when faced with an imperfect system, we have errored towards avoiding the latter and accepting the former. It doesn't mean that the system is perfectly just, only that is as just as we can reasonably manage for pragmatic purposes.
    That may be your reasoning, but it is not mine.
    It is my position that it is just judgment to require two or three witnesses for a thing to be established.
    We may end up at the same point, but we should not assume that our reasoning and justification is the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Innocent, until proven guilty, is not just statement in and of itself, it is a compromise position that accepts some level of injustice to avoid possible greater injustice.
    I disagree. It is a statement in and of itself. It is the just course of action to guide our lives.
    Anything else is unjust.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So if I commit a crime, but there is only one witness to it. Then it is just for me to get away wtih thtat crime without punishment? I stronly disagree. I think if I commit a crime, the only truly just outcome is that I face the prescribed (and presumably proportional) punishment. Your "definition" of justice is bunko.
    You have not accuratly described my position, and thus have attacked a straw-man.
    I won't engage straw-men arguments or defend them.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Of course they make a claim. They claim not to have done this, and someone else claims they have. Both parties have a truth claim.
    Not necissarily. there is no requirment for a denial.
    You have already started with a false assumption.
    Second, you have comitted the falasy of shifting the burden of proof. There is no burden on the accused to prove innocent.Which means no requirement for "evidence".
    Your assumptions are both unjust and illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Now, for us to take action of some kind, we need to have some level of asurity that we are acting on the truth of the situation, so we need to do our best to evaluate which claim is true. Certainly, the person alledging wrongdoing should be the first to step forward, for if there is no such cliam, we need not be interessted. But once that claim is made, then an evaluation has to happen. Certainly it falls on both parties to put forward evidence of their claim in so much as we can.
    Again, false. It doesn't fall on the defendant to put forth evidence. As they have no burden. Better yet a third party can do just fine in defending the accused by simply poking holes in the accusers claims, and challenging their evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    When it is a criminal trial we do set a high standard for the prosecution for the reasons i outlined. But those resons are not really about doing perfect justice. They are pragmatic concerns about avoiding unwanted consiquences and other injustices. I support them, but I understand they don't represent perfect justice.
    Requiring two to three witnesses for a thing to be established IS perfectly just.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    It doesn't damage my possition at all. Even if it were 50/50 the best course is to learn more before making a judgement rather than to automatically choose one side or the other. The fact that the odds are weihed heavily in favor of the accusation bieng true is only damaging to the possition that we should automatically side with the possition more likely to be false. That's just stupid.
    If we assumed 50/50, what you are assuming is that this specific kind of claim, is far more than any other crime falsified by magnitudes and orders.
    that should give you great pause in the unjust and illogical demands that you are putting on any accused person.
    To serve man.

  16. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,349
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Agreed: In the absence of corroborating evidence, do NOT believe her.

    Do NOT believe HIM, either.

    And do NOT DISBELIEVE her.

    Go where the evidence leads.
    When there is an investigation which finds no corroborating evidence, believe HIM.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  17. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,061
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    From FBI statistics, claims of rape are 4 times more likely to be false than other serious crimes:

    As with all other Crime Index offenses, complaints of forcible rape made to law enforcement agencies are sometimes found to be false or baseless. In such cases, law enforcement agencies “unfound” the offenses and exclude them from crime counts. The “unfounded” rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were “unfounded,” while the average for all Index crimes was 2 percent. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf

    A women claiming rape or attempted rape by a man should NOT be believed without corroborating evidence.
    First off, "unfounded" does not necessarily mean that it was a complete lie.

    But even if we want to write off 8% of the claims, that means that the other 92% of the claims have merit. So if we are going to use this issue in the simplest manner, it would indicate that 92% of the claims are valid and therefore the claim is USUALLY true which means that we should USUALLY believe the alleged victim. But really, when it comes to judging individual claims, this is a fairly useless factor anyway and whether one believes the claim is, and should be, based on other factors.

    And to be clear, that does not mean that the claim alone should necessarily convict the accused. The standard for a criminal conviction is "innocent until proven guilty" which means not only must the claim be believable but that the evidence for the alleged assault should be strong enough to overcome reasonable doubt in a jury. And likewise someone, like anyone on this thread, thinking that a particular claim is valid/believable/true in no way violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in the manner where it is used as a legal principle - again, it only applies when one is on the jury. The notion that it must likewise be applied in an ODN debate or really anywhere outside of a criminal trial (it's not even the standard that's used in a civil trial) is not a particularly valid position.

    ---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    When there is an investigation which finds no corroborating evidence, believe HIM.
    If one believes him, then they must conclude that she is lying. So you seem to be saying that if the investigation finds no corroborating evidence that her claim is true, then we must conclude that she is lying.
    Last edited by mican333; October 26th, 2018 at 09:58 AM.

  18. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,229
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If we don't call for punishment, then we are acting as though they are innocent.
    It can't be helped.
    Perhaps you do, I do not. I may not act against someone who I suspect may be guilty, but I may also not especially trust them either.

    So, let's say someone is accused of being a child molester, but there isn't quite enough evidence to convict them. So you trust your children alone with this person, or do you hedge your bets and avoid doing so? There is such a thing as a state of doubt where we hedge our bets against both possibilities.

    In my world view that never happens, we are all judged. So.. this is not a valid point against me.
    Why then should we maintain any criminal system at all. If justice is already done for us, then why enact it ourselves?

    It is my position that it is just judgment to require two or three witnesses for a thing to be established.
    Let us hope that if you are ever the victim of a crime, there are sufficient witnesses on hand. I'm sure if there are not, you will simply shrug and leave the matter at rest so that justice isn't subverted by your unjust accusations.

    I disagree. It is a statement in and of itself. It is the just course of action to guide our lives.
    Anything else is unjust.
    You have not provided a reason why this is true. I have shown you instances in which this leads to an injustice, a guilty person escaping punishment.

    You have not accurately described my position, and thus have attacked a straw-man.
    I won't engage straw-men arguments or defend them.
    While you did not say it, it is the logical conclusion of your claim.

    Again, false. It doesn't fall on the defendant to put forth evidence. As they have no burden. Better yet a third party can do just fine in defending the accused by simply poking holes in the accusers claims, and challenging their evidence.
    I agree that is possible, but in many cases it is not especially advisable.

    If we assumed 50/50, what you are assuming is that this specific kind of claim is far more than any other crime falsified by magnitudes and orders.
    that should give you great pause in the unjust and illogical demands that you are putting on any accused person.
    I hope you don't engage in any kind of gambling because your understanding of the odds are not good. i put no demands on anyone. I am only speaking to what is a rational way of approaching truth claims. An irrational way would be to decide agaisnt the odds by default. A rational way is to bar judgement until further investigation and then to decide which seems most likely or the best explination of the curcumstances.

    In a criminal case, I agree with the proposition of innocent until proven guilty in terms of the eyes of the law. It protects agaisnt greater injustices and serves as a bulwark against abuse of state power. But it isn't really a way to know truth, only a way to be more certain if we are going to make an act that cannot be effectively reversed which seriously impacts someones life.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  20. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Perhaps you do, I do not. I may not act against someone who I suspect may be guilty, but I may also not especially trust them either.
    Well, trust is something earned anyway. I don't think it is unjust to not trust anyone.
    Now, say you deny a person accused of something (anything) because they are accused. Well you are acting like they are guilty.

    I understand the point your trying to make, but I'm focused on things in regards to justice.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So, let's say someone is accused of being a child molester, but there isn't quite enough evidence to convict them. So you trust your children alone with this person, or do you hedge your bets and avoid doing so? There is such a thing as a state of doubt where we hedge our bets against both possibilities.
    but your not treating them unjustly. Because they are not owed the right to watch your children. I think parents are supposed to follow their gut feeling on a lot of things in regards to their children.
    That isn't a case of injustice.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Why then should we maintain any criminal system at all. If justice is already done for us, then why enact it ourselves?
    Red herring. Not really relevant to the topic of believing her or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Let us hope that if you are ever the victim of a crime, there are sufficient witnesses on hand. I'm sure if there are not, you will simply shrug and leave the matter at rest so that justice isn't subverted by your unjust accusations.
    Thanks. Let your mind be at rest as the few times we have had to pray for justice, we have gotten it.
    We have however been the victim of around 30k+ in various damages/thefts with not a single person going to jail or being held accountable for it that we know of.
    probably above average.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    You have not provided a reason why this is true. I have shown you instances in which this leads to an injustice, a guilty person escaping punishment.
    And I addressed that concern. In that no one truly gets away with anything as all are held accountable.

    No, I did not offer a reason as to why it is so. Except that is how justice is defined. If you define it some other way, I simply don't know what you are talking about.
    My definition is an appeal to the nature of God, and while you are free to reject it. You would have to lay down some other basis.
    Which you would have to answer why not some other way? Like why not the way I forwarded, or why not have justice defined as maximum pain?

    -I don't think this is an issue that will be resolved per say, but it is important to note.
    So if we disagree on the underlying ground work, do we agree on the definitions?

    So the question is,
    Assuming no neutral position, Do you think it is just to assume innocents or guilt?
    Do you agree that 2 lines of evidence is a just measure in order for something to be established(such as to be acted on)?
    This would be as opposed to no evidence, or only a persons word.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    While you did not say it, it is the logical conclusion of your claim.
    Support

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I agree that is possible, but in many cases it is not especially advisable.
    Actually, it is very much advisable and the advise many are given.
    Like not talking to police for example. The very first thing that we are advised to do is say nothing.
    So, you are minimizing something that really blows a hole in your position, as it requires a claim to be made by both sides.
    That assumption stands as false.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I hope you don't engage in any kind of gambling because your understanding of the odds are not good.
    Why.. you gave odds of 50/50 vs odds of 2%. ... I argued from the position that 50/50 was greater/better than 2%
    and that the difference should give us pause. Because we are talking about a rate at which people lie about a crime.
    What misunderstanding of the odds have I made? don't just claim it.. support it, that way I can actually be corrected, instead of personally berated by you.
    The former is helpful, the latter is just dickish.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I am only speaking to what is a rational way of approaching truth claims. An irrational way would be to decide agaisnt the odds by default. A rational way is to bar judgement until further investigation and then to decide which seems most likely or the best explination of the curcumstances.
    I have addressed the inherent flaw in your logic. You assumed two contradictory claims.
    When there is no need, nor should be any need for a denial by the innocent.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    In a criminal case, I agree with the proposition of innocent until proven guilty in terms of the eyes of the law. It protects agaisnt greater injustices and serves as a bulwark against abuse of state power. But it isn't really a way to know truth, only a way to be more certain if we are going to make an act that cannot be effectively reversed which seriously impacts someones life.
    It is a way of dealing with others in a just way.
    There is no neutral position that you can live out. You either act in accordance with guilt or innocence.
    You/we may personally be inconsistent with applying it, but that just makes us unjust and inconsistent.

    Also, this is not a discussion about knowing truth. That is what evidence is. It is the "truth" that we know. This is about how to use the truth we know in a just manner. How to treat our fellow man in a just manner.

    The reason we assume innocence is because that is what is just to do. Acting unjustly leads to injustice. If the state acts unjustly (like assuming guilt) then it is going to be an unjust gov. Naturally just laws, guard against unjust gov, such as ability to abuse power.
    To serve man.

  21. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In my world view that never happens
    Wait, you don't believe that someone can be saved and avoid going to hell for their crimes?

  22. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    @future. No that is not my position or what I forwarded.
    To serve man.

  23. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    697
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Do NOT Believe Her

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @future. No that is not my position or what I forwarded.
    It actually is. Let's re-cap:
    Sig: Is it just for a man to commit a crime and get away with no punishment?
    MT: In my world view that never happens.

    So, in your worldview, it never happens that someone commits a crime and is not punished.
    But since getting saved and going to heaven = not being punished, your response to Sig is incompatible with Xtian doctrine, which is why I asked whether you believed that someone could be saved and avoid going to hell.

    If you believe that someone can be saved and is therefore not punished, then what Sig described actually does happen in your worldview, and you're apparently okay with it.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •