Marshall Faulk, 2 others suspended from NFL Network.

[TakeYouToTasker]

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Course they don't.  What's his name down in Alabama, "Judge" Roy Moore?

I'll ask you to source for me the decisions Roy Moore has rendered where he referenced group identity as the reason for his decision.

 

Are you piggy backing onto his argument that we should develop a legal caste system under which the burden of proof should be more difficult to achieve for white men?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

16 hours ago, Rob's House said:

We're not just talking about the handful of celebrities you see on Access Hollywood. It's also not just about ruining lives. These things seep into the culture and if taken too far make it worse.

 

What things seeping into the culture and taken too far you talking about?  This stuff? 

I agree, this kind of "women are objects for men to use however they get away with" sure has seeped into the culture and made it worse 'cuz, taken too far.

 

Back in Da Day when dinosaurs roamed the earth and we walked to school uphill in the snow both ways, it was expected that a girl at a frat party would be offered drinks with the goal of getting in her pants.   My granny had a rhyme for it: "not a big drinker, two at the most, three under the table, four under the host." It was not expected that the guys at the party would spike the punch with drugs to incapacitate the female guests, or that the guy who first got in a girl's pants would leave the room and invite in 5 bros to "run train" and film it.  It's way out of control, and make no mistake - these football stars and entertainment execs and so forth are acting as they are towards women, because they've been treating women like that since HS then college and getting away with it for decades, and the women are damn sure complicit in it or they'd boycott the parties and the frats where everyone on campus knows stuff like that happens and make an end instead of "oh, no, they're the cool boys in the top-tier frat, we can't do that".    It goes on and on.

8 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I'll ask you to source for me the decisions Roy Moore has rendered where he referenced group identity as the reason for his decision.

 

Sorry, no can do.  People don't put open labels on the underlying group identity assumptions that drive their decisions.  That's what makes them insidious.

 

I'll give you a pretty clear group identity reason by a judge though.  Recent trial by judge of a police officer in St Louis charged with murdering a suspected drug dealer who struck the police car and fled on a high speed chase.  There was evidence that the police officer who shot the suspect planted a gun in the suspect's car - he was videoed rummaging in his personal bag, then entering the suspect's car (while a group of LEO's not involved in the shooting stood around) and claimed to find and 'safe" a gun which proved to have HIS DNA (the officers) but not the suspects, when tested.  The LEO was found not guilty, which I actually think was the correct legal decision in this instance.  As part of his decision, the judge stated that he believed the suspect had a gun, because "in his experience an urban drug dealer without a firearm would be an anomaly".

 

There you go: group identity = gun.  DNA evidence, meh.

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Sorry, no can do.  People don't put open labels on the underlying group identity assumptions that drive their decisions.  That's what makes them insidious.

So you have no evidence other than your feelings and biases.

 

Case dismissed.

 

I'll give you a pretty clear group identity reason by a judge though.  Recent trial by judge of a police officer in St Louis charged with murdering a suspected drug dealer who struck the police car and fled on a high speed chase.  There was evidence that the police officer who shot the suspect planted a gun in the suspect's car - he was videoed rummaging in his personal bag, then entering the suspect's car (while a group of LEO's not involved in the shooting stood around) and claimed to find and 'safe" a gun which proved to have HIS DNA (the officers) but not the suspects, when tested.  The LEO was found not guilty, which I actually think was the correct legal decision in this instance.  As part of his decision, the judge stated that he believed the suspect had a gun, because "in his experience an urban drug dealer without a firearm would be an anomaly".

 

There you go: group identity = gun.  DNA evidence, meh.

As flawed as that is, that's still a judgment value about a lifestyle an individual chose.  Not a genetic fact.

 

He referenced the individuals chosen activity as an urban drug dealer.  He did not reference the individual's  gender or race, both things the individual has no say in.

 

So again, are you piggy backing onto his argument that we should develop a legal caste system under which the burden of proof should be more difficult to achieve for white men?

[unbillievable]

16 hours ago, Capco said:

Anyone who gets falsely accused absolutely does matter.  It does happen, but the alternative of not taking every accusation at face value initially will result in more sexual misconduct and less justice for the actual victims.  In no way, shape, or form do I condone such behavior from false accusers.  

This way of thinking is very dangerous.

 

Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better to let 100 criminals go free than to send 1 innocent person to prison. It should never be equal. The burden of proof has to always be on the accuser.

 

There is a thread in the PPP that cites a campus investigation where a lawyer told a committee that they must find the man guilty or 100 more girls will be assaulted by other emboldened men. It didn't matter whether he was innocent or not.  Others in the media have stated that it is preferable to destroy a man's career and reputation than to "victim blame"; better to ruin 100 men's lives than to doubt any woman's claims. "Women don't lie about rape..." 

 

We've moved to guilty until proven innocent. "She has a right to be believed."

[YoloinOhio]

 

[HappyDays]

58 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

LMAO he really posted pictures of the sex toys he gifted her and claimed it wasn't harassment because he thought they were cute. Wow. But a bunch of people in this thread already decided the woman lied about the whole thing so I guess he is probably lying too.

[Helpmenow]

The U!

[Beast]

20 hours ago, Capco said:

 

Oh really?  And where are all these examples of innocent men having their lives destroyed again?

 

I suggest you look up the Duke lacrosse team story.

[Capco]

3 hours ago, unbillievable said:

This way of thinking is very dangerous.

 

Our legal system is based on the idea that it is better to let 100 criminals go free than to send 1 innocent person to prison. It should never be equal. The burden of proof has to always be on the accuser.

 

There is a thread in the PPP that cites a campus investigation where a lawyer told a committee that they must find the man guilty or 100 more girls will be assaulted by other emboldened men. It didn't matter whether he was innocent or not.  Others in the media have stated that it is preferable to destroy a man's career and reputation than to "victim blame"; better to ruin 100 men's lives than to doubt any woman's claims. "Women don't lie about rape..." 

 

We've moved to guilty until proven innocent. "She has a right to be believed."

 

I'm not saying to fire people as soon as someone gets accused.  But any victim DOES have a right to be believed; there is no way to differentiate a false accuser from a genuine victim initially, is there?  

 

The firm needs to do their homework behind closed doors and figure out who's telling the truth.  Get testimonies of employees, examine digital evidence, use lie detectors, etc.  If evidence is conclusive, fire the accused.  If it's found to be completely false, fire the accuser and exonerate the accused to your other employees.  

 

Sexual harrassment needs to be punished, but so too do false accusations.  There is no double standard.  

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Capco said:

 

I'm not saying to fire people as soon as someone gets accused.  But any victim DOES have a right to be believed; there is no way to differentiate a false accuser from a genuine victim initially, is there?  

 

The firm needs to do their homework behind closed doors and figure out who's telling the truth.  Get testimonies of employees, examine digital evidence, use lie detectors, etc.  If evidence is conclusive, fire the accused.  If it's found to be completely false, fire the accuser and exonerate the accused to your other employees.  

 

Sexual harrassment needs to be punished, but so too do false accusations.  There is no double standard.  

It sounds to me like this country desperately needs a court system so we can sort out things between plaintiffs and defendants!  Oh wait.....WE ALREADY HAVE ONE!

 

PS:  The internet and water cooler gossip is not a substitute for a court system.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I come here to talk football and occasionally veer off course, then repent me.

 

But I thought this was a good punctuation mark.  Hapless Peace Out.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

ESPN:

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2017/12/14/women-who-worked-espn-say-its-problems-far-beyond-barstool-sports/L1v9HJIvtnHuBPiMru6yGM/story.html

 

 

[JMF2006]

6 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

ESPN:

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2017/12/14/women-who-worked-espn-say-its-problems-far-beyond-barstool-sports/L1v9HJIvtnHuBPiMru6yGM/story.html

 

 

 

Can't they just stick to doing the weather

[Domdab99]

On 12/12/2017 at 5:02 AM, Steptide said:

It's going to get to a point where if you look at an attractive woman it's gonna be sexual harassment 

 

Yeah, men sure have had it rough through the years. How dare women want to be treated as equals and without having to worry about the threat of assault or worse! Bitches. 

[Domdab99]

I mean, soon we're not going to be able to harass any women at all, right? So unfair.

[Manther]

On 2017-12-12 at 9:02 AM, Steptide said:

I dunno, for me I just think of it this way, you had a sexual revolution in the 60s and 70s, then released porn movies into theaters in the 80s, and now everything in media and on TV is overly sexualized. Meanwhile theirs probably 40 different websites you can stream free porn on, but the public is shocked and outraged when a sexual allegation happens. Again, Im not justifying it, but what does the public expect. It is a result of culture that we've created. On top of that, our president owns or owned the miss America pageant and is married to a very attractive woman who's posed nude for magazines. 

IMO, you are wrong and offside with this and previous comments in this thread.  You are debating apples to oranges comparisons.  You are talking about exceptions vs the norm.

 

There is a clear line between right  and wrong.   If you don't know where it is I am not mad....just disappointed.

[boyst]

On 12/12/2017 at 10:55 PM, Capco said:

 

I understand your concerns, but I don't think you need to be concerned.  That's my point really.  

 

Anyone who gets falsely accused absolutely does matter.  It does happen, but the alternative of not taking every accusation at face value initially will result in more sexual misconduct and less justice for the actual victims.  In no way, shape, or form do I condone such behavior from false accusers.  

 

We need to tell our boys how to treat women respectfully, and we need to tell our girls to do the exact same to men.  Part of that includes telling girls about the very serious repercussions of a false sexual allegation.  "These are the lines that you're not supposed to cross."

 

This is a slow process.  It won't happen overnight and there will be bumps along the way.  But in the end it will be for the better.  

We need to tell our girls not to dress like whores, have morals, there are consequences to poor decisions, not everyone is nice, they're not a god damn princess

...

All of that before what false allegations can do.

 

It's not a slow process. It's only made a slow process because of the agenda being pushed. It's a political MSM centered effort. Pre 2016, everyone was racist. Post 2016 everyone is sexist and it'll be this way until the pendulum shifts and we are such god damn pussies in this country that we might as well call ourselves Canadians

On 12/13/2017 at 4:43 PM, YoloinOhio said:

 

That's a joke. I know 3 women personally he has either attempted to assault or behaved with extreme aggression in bedding them.

[Capco]

2 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

We need to tell our girls not to dress like whores, have morals, there are consequences to poor decisions, not everyone is nice, they're not a god damn princess

...

All of that before what false allegations can do.

 

It's not a slow process. It's only made a slow process because of the agenda being pushed. It's a political MSM centered effort. Pre 2016, everyone was racist. Post 2016 everyone is sexist and it'll be this way until the pendulum shifts and we are such god damn pussies in this country that we might as well call ourselves Canadians

 

Wow.  Considering the level of narrowsightedness in this post, I can't really blame you for not seeing what I'm saying.  You genuinely lack the ability to do so.

[boyst]

1 hour ago, Domdab99 said:

 

Yeah, men sure have had it rough through the years. How dare women want to be treated as equals and without having to worry about the threat of assault or worse! Bitches. 

You can't be treated as equal then demand to be given special treatment for giving birth.  This is just one example. But men and women are in no way equal.

 

I'd never exercise this in my place of employment because I don't give a **** enough to give a ****.  But if hiring a woman you must figure she will miss time for having a child, caring for a child, and odds are she's a single.mother so missing time is a must.

 

Women want their cake and to eat it to.  Remember that next time your wife wants a jar opened.

Just now, Capco said:

 

Wow.  Considering the level of narrowsightedness in this post, I can't really blame you for not seeing what I'm saying.  You genuinely lack the ability to do so.

Your viewpoint is different then mine. Therefore I am going to call you ignorant and say youre out of touch with reality..

1 hour ago, Manther said:

IMO, you are wrong and offside with this and previous comments in this thread.  You are debating apples to oranges comparisons.  You are talking about exceptions vs the norm.

 

There is a clear line between right  and wrong.   If you don't know where it is I am not mad....just disappointed.

I thought you were taking on his error in saying 40 porn sites...  Because, last I counted it is 376,891 you can stream live heterosexual pornographic material. 

[Capco]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

Your viewpoint is different than mine. Therefore I am going to call you ignorant and say youre out of touch with reality..

 

Oh come on man.  You genuinely boiled down what's happening right now by saying "Pre 2016, everyone was racist. Post 2016 everyone is sexist".

 

Do you not see how incredibly simple-minded it is to break it down like that? 

 

I'm pretty sure you don't see it because you can't.