Marshall Faulk, 2 others suspended from NFL Network.

[T-Bomb]

1 minute ago, PolishDave said:

 

14 years of dating T-bomb.   If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it.      Or don't.

 

I'm a nonconformist when it comes to the institution of marriage. Said institution is toxic to men IMO.

[Big Turk]

2 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

14 years of dating T-bomb.   If you like it then you shoulda put a ring on it.      Or don't.   She's still gonna take half your crap if she gets sick of "dating"

 

"Bitches" = that chick got with a guy I wanted to get with

[HappyDays]

3 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

No I believe men need to start suing the hell out of companies over this so their fear of lawsuits is equal from both sides meaning their judgement is not clouded by potential of lawsuits.

 

Too often at the end of the day its about their liability rather than the truth.

 

If they are actually smeared and suspended without cause they would sue. Can you think of a good example of a celebrity that was unfairly accused of sexual harassment? You act like it happens all the time. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, T-Bomb said:

 

I'm a nonconformist when it comes to the institution of marriage. Said institution is toxic to men IMO.

Bro marriage is the ultimate beneficial male institution if properly constructed.

[Big Turk]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Bro marriage is the ultimate beneficial male institution if properly constructed.

In what way?

 

You limit your options while signing a bad contract.

[PolishDave]

5 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

No I believe men need to start suing the hell out of companies over this so their fear of lawsuits is equal from both sides meaning their judgement is not clouded by potential of lawsuits.

 

Too often at the end of the day its about their liability rather than the truth.

 

Dude, one thing we don't need in the country is more lawsuits.

 

Chick should just move to a state where lots of people carry guns - like Texas - and then tell her brother what happened.    Then Smith and Wesson can solve the issue.

[GoBills808]

Just now, matter2003 said:

In what way?

 

You limit your options while signing a bad contract.

Top FAs are always looking for that long term deal. Don't sell yourself short.

[TakeYouToTasker]

32 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Women don't need my protection, but they deserve to be heard and believed. The fact that people like you never believe victims is what leads them to stay quiet for years before it's convenient for them to speak up. Your take is so antiquated. Sympathizing with men for "having their lives ruined" and blaming women for their "choices" when in a lot of these situations people should be demanding the opposite to happen. 

 

Gross. 

No, they don't deserve to be believed.  You have it 100% backwards.

 

Justice is not metered out based on feelings.  It requires evidence, and the ability of the accused to meet their accuser with the presumption of innocence.

 

You cannot reconcile the presumption of innocence of the accused, with the burden of proof being on the accuser; with the assertion that the accuser has the right to be believed.  These things are opposing ideals.

 

The first is the hallmark of the liberal system of jurisprudence, the second is a prop of third world kangaroo courts empowered to destroy lives on a whim with no evidence.

 

The fact is that I sympathize with anyone who has their lives ruined by charges absent evidence because that is a system which courts abuse and injustice by design, and assumes with the presumption of guilt forcing the accused to prove their innocence.

 

Let's do a thought experiment:

 

You and I are standing near each other.  You have $50 dollars in your wallet.  A police officer walks by and I tell the officer you stole my money.  We live in a society in which the accuser has the right to be believed.  Prove you didn't steal my money, or go to jail.

 

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[PolishDave]

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, they don't deserve to be believed.  You have it 100% backwards.

 

Justice is not metered out based on feelings.  It requires evidence, and the ability of the accused to meet their accuser with the presumption of innocence.

 

You cannot reconcile the presumption of innocence of the accused, with the burden of proof being on the accuser; with the assertion that the accuser has the right to be believed.  These things are opposing ideals.

 

The first is the hallmark of the liberal system of jurisprudence, the second is a prop of third world kangaroo courts empowered to destroy lives on a whim with no evidence.

 

The fact is that I sympathize with anyone who has their lives ruined by charges absent evidence because that is a system which courts abuse and injustice by design, and assumes with the presumption of guilt forcing the accused to prove their innocence.

 

 

Have you ever dealt with NYS department of Tax and Finance?

 

Ask any business owner in NY about them who has dealt with them - You are guilty until proven innocent.   Give the king his money.

 

I thought it was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.   Truly it is not if you are dealing with the state itself.  You must prove innocence even when they produce zero evidence of fault on your part.   You must prove innocence if merely accused with zero evidence.  "F" New York State  "F" big government.

[Helpmenow]

Lindsay Rhodes is gotta be saying to herself WTF is going on here.

[ndirish1978]

I'm just surprised Rex hasn't been suspended yet. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, ndirish1978 said:

I'm just surprised Rex hasn't been suspended yet. 

Covered shoes mandatory at NFL Sunday Countdown set apparently.

[HappyDays]

18 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Prove you didn't steal my money, or go to jail.

 

 

Someone in this thread said you should be a lawyer?? You legitimately don't understand the difference between  a reasonable person choosing to believe something or not, and the legal standard for guilt required to send someone to jail. You surely believe OJ was guilty, yes? Regardless of the verdict after full due process was exercised a reasonable person can look at the facts and make a different determination.

Edited December 12, 2017 by HappyDays

[entropyrules]

4 hours ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

Are we talking about the same Marshall Faulk who has six children with four different women?

 

We ain't exactly talking about a born-again Christian here.

 

 

yea unfortunately for him he can't run for Senator in Alabama because of that

[ndirish1978]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Covered shoes mandatory at NFL Sunday Countdown set apparently.

 

When he does get suspended, and I am just waiting for it to happen, the details will likely be stomach-churning.

[GoBills808]

Just now, ndirish1978 said:

 

When he does get suspended, and I am just waiting for it to happen, the details will likely be stomach-churning.

Toe-curling.

[Rob's House]

42 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Women don't need my protection, but they deserve to be heard and believed. The fact that people like you never believe victims is what leads them to stay quiet for years before it's convenient for them to speak up. Your take is so antiquated. Sympathizing with men for "having their lives ruined" and blaming women for their "choices" when in a lot of these situations people should be demanding the opposite to happen. 

 

Gross. 

 

 

 

Shouldn't each case be evaluated on its own merits? 

 

How does arbitrarily prejudging the situation by choosing to believe the accusor, which necessarily equates to disbelieving the accused, further the interest of justice?

 

And why are you so quick to dismiss the injustice against the falsely accused?

[Big Turk]

4 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

Shouldn't each case be evaluated on its own merits? 

 

How does arbitrarily prejudging the situation by choosing to believe the accusor, which necessarily equates to disbelieving the accused, further the interest of justice?

 

And why are you so quick to dismiss the injustice against the falsely accused?

He's the person who believes that the person wrongly jailed 20 years and set free on DNA evidence should stay locked up because they are "guilty of something"

[TakeYouToTasker]

20 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Someone in this thread said you should be a lawyer?? You legitimately don't understand the difference between  a reasonable person choosing to believe something or not, and the legal standard for guilt required to send someone to jail. You surely believe OJ was guilty, yes? Regardless of the verdict after full due process was exercised a reasonable person can look at the facts and make a different determination.

What I said is that I am very sypathetic towards individuals facing charges without evidence, and that I think it is wrong to expose individuals to negative outcomes based on charges absent evidence.

 

I provided a thought experiment illustrating why the presumption of guilt is problematic to a society seeking to be just.

Edited December 12, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[BigPappy]

4 hours ago, matter2003 said:

 

I still maintain this has happened due to the precipitous drop in male testosterone levels since the 1950's once plastics, pollutants and pesticides became widespread and every generation of male has on average lower testosterone than the previous one.  In fact it has gotten so bad, LabCorp and some other companies have reduced the "normal" range in their testosterone bloodwork tests to coincide with this.  As more and more low testosterone men become the norm, they have the ability to continue nearly unabated because they won't stand up to them...they let women walk all over them, they are the onescrying during breakups and acting all emotional...in large part many men have taken on the role of women in their relationships and the women take on the man's role---and deep down they despise it...they hate that men let them get away with it and won't stand up to them, but they love that they get their way.

 

Any guy over 30 should get their Testosterone levels checked and look into getting on TRT if their levels are under 500...heck actually nowadays, anyone over 20....I know guys who are 19 and 20 with T levels in the 300's...its the epidemic nobody wants to talk about.

 

Yes, this is 100% accurate.  

[Big Turk]

An office in the men's bathroom huh?  Why do I find this very difficult to believe?

[HappyDays]

23 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What I said is that I am very sypathetic towards individuals facing charges without evidence, and that I think it is wrong to expose individuals to negative outcomes based on charges absent evidence.

 

I provided a thought experiment illustrating why the presumption of guilt is problematic to a society seeking to be just.

 

Nobody here has been charged. An accusation was made. Read the details and make your own judgments. Personally I am somewhat skeptical of some of the details because no other women came forward which tends to happen in these situations. I am confident her office really was in the men's bathroom because that would be a weird lie to tell when it is easily proven false. I would think the text messages they sent are also easily proven to be true or false so I am guessing that part is also true. Some of the more gratuitous allegations I am not as confident on. The network was right to suspend them pending an investigation and if she lied she should be held fully accountable. I'm not going to ignore all the facts right there in front of me.

[jrober38]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, they don't deserve to be believed.  You have it 100% backwards.

 

Justice is not metered out based on feelings.  It requires evidence, and the ability of the accused to meet their accuser with the presumption of innocence.

 

You cannot reconcile the presumption of innocence of the accused, with the burden of proof being on the accuser; with the assertion that the accuser has the right to be believed.  These things are opposing ideals.

 

The first is the hallmark of the liberal system of jurisprudence, the second is a prop of third world kangaroo courts empowered to destroy lives on a whim with no evidence.

 

The fact is that I sympathize with anyone who has their lives ruined by charges absent evidence because that is a system which courts abuse and injustice by design, and assumes with the presumption of guilt forcing the accused to prove their innocence.

 

Let's do a thought experiment:

 

You and I are standing near each other.  You have $50 dollars in your wallet.  A police officer walks by and I tell the officer you stole my money.  We live in a society in which the accuser has the right to be believed.  Prove you didn't steal my money, or go to jail.

 

 

 

Oh man.

 

They don't deserved to be believed? Sexual predators should just be left alone to ruin peoples lives so long as they're careful about not getting caught. God forbid anyone accuse someone for severe misconduct unless they have concrete evidence that it happened. 

 

Holy crap. 

[Buftex]

2 hours ago, SaviorPeterman said:

For those that aren't sheep and are paying close attention, I hope you understand what the elites and liberals are doing here pushing this BS 'Sexual Harassment' narrative to the forefront in recent weeks.

 

Obviously the Russia collusion story is going nowhere despite the recent arrests and charges against Trump campaign members (the charges have nothing to do with Trump or his campaign BTW) so this was 'Plan B' all along. And liberals have no problem sacrificing their own (i.e. Weinstein, Al Franken, etc) to set the stage for 2020 when they run another female candidate against Trump and push the gender card to the forefront again even though they failed miserably with Crooked Hillary. Same reason all the BS sexual accusations against Trump are magically in the news again and you see his 'victims' sob stories as if they are 'new' allegations.

 

It's pretty sad the lengths Democrats (and some Republicans) are going to go to try and stop this guy because he's not one of them and never will be. And even when Trump wins by a larger margin in 2020 they'll still find new ways to waste taxpayer money and continue their futile efforts. These are truly sick people folks.

 

In case you haven't been paying attention, you don't have any idea what is going on with the collusion story.  Mueller investigation isn't leaking info, and it is driving the president crazy...crazier than he already was.  Thanks for chiming in Mr Hannity...

Edited December 12, 2017 by Buftex

[TakeYouToTasker]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Nobody here has been charged. An accusation was made. Read the details and make your own judgments. Personally I am somewhat skeptical of some of the details because no other women came forward which tends to happen in these situations. I am confident her office really was in the men's bathroom because that would be a weird lie to tell when it is easily proven false. I would think the text messages they sent are also easily proven to be true or false so I am guessing that part is also true. Some of the more gratuitous allegations I am not as confident on. The network was right to suspend them pending an investigation and if she lied she should be held fully accountable. I'm not going to ignore all the facts right there in front of me.

An accusation is a charge.  Those are synonyms.  I'm not talking about legalities here.

 

What I'm talking about is the acceptance that there is a reason a presumption of innocence is the legal standard in the liberal tradition, and I find arguments in favor of that standard to be far more compelling in the interests of justice than the assumption of guilt.

[boyst]

2 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

It's not a feeling. There's plenty of research by trained psychologists that explains why victims don't immediately come forward. 

1,000 monkeys with a type writer could type the same research or contrary research.

 

Psychobabble is just that.

 

2017: the year in which women made men in to pussies and continued the pussification of this country.

 

It's not an easy topic to counter. If you disagree with a woman wearing a pink hat you'll be deemed intolerant and a Nazi.  If you do any one little thing the wack pack of feminists disagree with you'll be burned alive.

 

That's why I go on the offensive with women and say the most outright outrageous things.  It works. 

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

An individual's learnings, in the context of said person's beliefs and lifestyle, are 'feelings'?

 

That's a tough field to plow.

Yes.  

 

Say a person grows up tough on the streets and thinks violence and aggression is a way of life to assert a dominant role and not be victimized. 

 

That's no different.   See?

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Oh man.

 

They don't deserved to be believed? Sexual predators should just be left alone to ruin peoples lives so long as they're careful about not getting caught. God forbid anyone accuse someone for severe misconduct unless they have concrete evidence that it happened. 

 

Holy crap. 

No.  They don't deserve to be believed.

 

The justness of the process is more important than individual outcomes, and you're seeking to create a system of unequal rights in which men are subjugated to women.

 

It is better to have a system in which all individuals are responsible for their own choices, and we err on the side of not destroying the lives of the innocent than to have a system in which one group of people have carte blanche to destroy anyone they want within another group with nothing more than their say so.

 

 

 

 

[jrober38]

47 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

Shouldn't each case be evaluated on its own merits? 

 

How does arbitrarily prejudging the situation by choosing to believe the accusor, which necessarily equates to disbelieving the accused, further the interest of justice?

 

And why are you so quick to dismiss the injustice against the falsely accused?

 

Sure, but the issue with almost every sexual assault case is that the public's initial reaction is that the victim is out to get the accused. Numerous people in this thread have said that accusers flat out should not be believed. 

That's what you're up against when you get sexually assaulted. The public, and mostly men aren't going to believe a word you say under the premise you're trying to gain financially or even politically. That reaction is the reason why people don't come forward. 

 

Some guy just said that if we were standing beside each other on the street, and I had $50 and he saw a cop and told him I stole it, that I'd just go to jail. Sorry but that's not how it works. 

 

The cop will likely ask some questions. Maybe I have a bank receipt that shows I recently went to the bank. Maybe I have someone who can explain that they gave me the money. You can actually establish the facts of the case by talking to people and examining evidence. The same can be said about a sexual assault allegation. It's not just he said, she said. 

 

As someone said earlier, why do people think hardly any accused men sue for defamation? Ughhh, because they're almost always in the wrong and if they give a false deposition they can purger themselves. 

 

Remember when Donald Trump said he was going to sue everyone who accused him, and then he didn't. The reason why is pretty obvious. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Again, you've got to start somewhere.

 

30 years ago women wouldn't have dared to speak out. Now they are. That's progress. 

 

Probably because thirty years ago, they were called "bimbo eruptions."

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No.  They don't deserve to be believed.

 

The justness of the process is more important than individual outcomes, and you're seeking to create a system of unequal rights in which men are subjugated to women.

 

It is better to have a system in which all individuals are responsible for their own choices, and we err on the side of not destroying the lives of the innocent than to have a system in which one group of people have carte blanche to destroy anyone they want within another group with nothing more than their say so.

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh. You're a lost cause. 

 

Everyone should be responsible for their actions.... unless they're men who assault women. They should just be left alone. 

 

It's the woman's fault she was there in the first place. She should own that it's her fault she got raped. 

 

Jesus Christ man. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by jrober38

[DC Tom]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Sure, but the issue with almost every sexual assault case is that the public's initial reaction is that the victim is out to get the accused. Numerous people in this thread have said that accusers flat out should not be believed. 

 

Because most cases aren't cases, they're allegations that end up with punishment based on social shaming.  

 

Which is why "You have to start somewhere" is bull ****.  This is actively counter-productive.

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Ugh. You're a lost cause. 

 

Everyone should be responsible for their actions.... unless they're men who assault women. They should just be left alone. 

 

It's the woman's fault she was there in the first place. She should own that it's her fault she got raped. 

 

Jesus Christ man. 

 

Exactly not what he said.  Moron.

[jrober38]

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Because most cases aren't cases, they're allegations that end up with punishment based on social shaming.  

 

Which is why "You have to start somewhere" is bull ****.  This is actively counter-productive.

 

They're not criminal cases, but a lot of them are certainly civil cases. 

 

It's one thing to prove something criminally when you have to be completely certain. It's another to prove it in civil court where you only have to establish that it's more likely it happened than it didn't. 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, jrober38 said:

 

Women don't need my protection, but they deserve to be heard and believed. The fact that people like you never believe victims is what leads them to stay quiet for years before it's convenient for them to speak up. Your take is so antiquated. Sympathizing with men for "having their lives ruined" and blaming women for their "choices" when in a lot of these situations people should be demanding the opposite to happen. 

 

Gross. 

 

 

 

Women don't need to be heard.  That's a load of crap.

 

All people deserve to be heard. Not just the Gloria alred preaching from the steps Proclamation crap.

 

Women aren't anything but ho's and tricks.

[Fadingpain]

6 hours ago, BuffaloBill said:

I wonder how long it is before the parade of high profile guys accused of sexual harassment finally grinds to a halt.  It seems like now there are two or three every week.

 

 

You are seriously off here if the allegations against the men are proven true.

Funny, but once it becomes socially acceptable to publicly call out creepy, scumbag, male sexual deviants, you find there are 2 or 3 under every rock.  Who knew! 

 

I will guarantee it is the same with pedophiles; my theory is that it is super, super common behavior among humans...it's just not as easy to blow the whistle on that breed of scum so they remain under the rocks, mostly.  I'm sure they are everywhere.

 

 

 

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

There are many reasons sexual harassment goes unreported.  

 

1) It's usually presented in a way that "this is okay, this is just how we do things here." Whether it's a joke, or an "innocent" offer of a date or sex or whatever else. The offender isn't thinking of their behavior as harassment, even when it's egregious like Matt Lauer with a secret button under his desk, in his head he's probably not thinking "yes today I will harass one of my employees, preferably sexually." 

 

2) If the victim is a subordinate or in a position of less power or younger -- which is usually the case -- they may doubt their feelings. Women generally struggle with asserting their feelings because we live in a society that has traditionally taught girls to be nice & pleasant & to not make a scene, even when they ought to. This is changing but slowly.

 

As men, we tend to have a hard time understanding this because generally men will make a scene, or will take action. To keep speaking incredibly generally, that's one small aspect of why abusers tend to be men rather than the other way around -- men will just do things they feel are right, whereas women will overthink things until they feel absolutely certain. 

 

3) There usually isn't a clear way to handle reporting these things in the workplace, either. HR is there to protect the company, not you, so if you're bringing an allegation against a powerful person in the organization and you're, say, an assistant or a temp -- odds are, it's you that will be the one quietly shown the door. At-will employment has become increasingly common, meaning employers don't need any justification in particular to let you go.

 

I've seen this happen in companies that I've worked for -- in one case, the offender did also lose his job but so did the accuser, although the offender did continue to work for the company in quiet freelance way, whereas the accuser of course did not.

 

4) Men often simply do not want to believe women. You're seeing it even in this thread. "Where's the proof? Well, what did you do? What were you wearing?" It's easier to believe the woman is wrong, for some reason.

 

5) Lastly, I think most people agree with you in the very broad sense -- in a platonic ideal society, a crime would be reported and dealt with immediately after it'd been committed. I've never had to deal with being sexually harassed, but I have seen bosses who don't listen and don't care, and I have seen wildly incompetent HR at more places than I've seen competent HR. 

 

In Los Angeles, and the entertainment/media industry, obviously there's been a lot of this lately in the news. And there is also a lot that doesn't make the headlines. From what I've heard from friends and women generally in my life or circles, these instances are almost never really a "gray" thing -- I think sometimes men see the headlines and think, "ok so if I tell a coworker she looks nice, am I going to get sued?" No, that's not what's happening. To put it in equally simple scenario, it's essentially a version of the "casting couch" concept that's being taken down. The idea of "If you want to work in this town, honey, you need to go along to get along" (lol) -- that's the basic core at a lot of this. Men in power leveraging that power to get sex. Women not knowing if they have the power to fight back. Now we're seeing that people are listening.

And, this is why we devolved as a society. The cuckolded male who is outside of reality.

 

The only error I will reply to of this is the statement HR is there to protect the company. This shows the individual has worked for crappy companies.  HR is there to protect the company AND the employee.

 

 

Trust me, ive dated many executive HR women

[Big Turk]

10 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No.  They don't deserve to be believed.

 

The justness of the process is more important than individual outcomes, and you're seeking to create a system of unequal rights in which men are subjugated to women.

 

It is better to have a system in which all individuals are responsible for their own choices, and we err on the side of not destroying the lives of the innocent than to have a system in which one group of people have carte blanche to destroy anyone they want within another group with nothing more than their say so.

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't that how it worked during the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials? Anyone who was accused of being guilty was assumed to be guilty?

Edited December 12, 2017 by matter2003

[Buftex]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No.  They don't deserve to be believed.

 

The justness of the process is more important than individual outcomes, and you're seeking to create a system of unequal rights in which men are subjugated to women.

 

It is better to have a system in which all individuals are responsible for their own choices, and we err on the side of not destroying the lives of the innocent than to have a system in which one group of people have carte blanche to destroy anyone they want within another group with nothing more than their say so.

 

 

 

 

I think there are plenty of women who would argue that this is precisely what has been happening to them throughout time.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Ugh. You're a lost cause. 

 

Everyone should be responsible for their actions.... unless they're men who assault women. They should just be left alone. 

 

Jesus. 

This is a painfully stupid response.

 

You're the one looking to do away with the notion of the presumption of innocence, which is the central hallmark liberal jurisprudence, in favor of a system where we just go ahead and believe whatever the accuser says.

 

I gave you a thought experiment to contemplate, which created a parallel between a sexual assault accuser and a theft accuser for illustrative purposes, and you were so lacking in your ability to reason, you simply shut it down in your mind rather than considering it.

 

I'll revisit the experiment:  the police officer, starting with the assumption that you did in fact steal my money has prejudiced the entire situation.  The burden is now on you to prove you did not steal my money, and as logical inquiry tells us, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative.  As difficult as it would be for you to prove your innocence (even in your example, you might have been able to demonstrate that you didn't steal the $50 you currently have in your wallet from me) it would be insurmountably difficult to prove that you did not steal any other $50 sum which you are no longer in possession of, or $50 I claimed you stole from me 30 years ago.

[jrober38]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

This is a painfully stupid response.

 

You're the one looking to do away with the notion of the presumption of innocence, which is the central hallmark liberal jurisprudence, in favor of a system where we just go ahead and believe whatever the accuser says.

 

I gave you a thought experiment to contemplate, which created a parallel between a sexual assault accuser and a theft accuser for illustrative purposes, and you were so lacking in your ability to reason, you simply shut it down in your mind rather than considering it.

 

I'll revisit the experiment:  the police officer, starting with the assumption that you did in fact steal my money has prejudiced the entire situation.  The burden is now on you to prove you did not steal my money, and as logical inquiry tells us, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative.  As difficult as it would be for you to prove your innocence (even in your example, you might have been able to demonstrate that you didn't steal the $50 you currently have in your wallet from me) it would be insurmountably difficult to prove that you did not steal any other $50 sum which you are no longer in possession of, or $50 I claimed you stole from me 30 years ago.

 

It would be incredibly easy to prove my innocence. A bank statement, an ATM receipt, a witness who says they gave me the money, etc, etc, etc.

 

Your example is horribly stupid. 

 

The notion that you think it's just he said she said, without anyone actually asking questions that would establish whose account is accurate is incredibly foolish. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by jrober38

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Buftex said:

I think there are plenty of women who would argue that this is precisely what has been happening to them throughout time.

A bit over simplified, but if that is actually the case, and a logical argument is forwarded that we should not do that, you cannot use it as a justification to do the exact same thing to a different group.

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

It would be incredibly easy to prove my innocence. A bank statement, an ATM receipt, a witness who says they gave me the money.

 

Your example is horribly stupid. 

No, it would not be incredibly easy to prove you did not steal from me.  This is the entire basis for RICO laws, and why almost none of the assets seized under RICO forfeiture are returned to it's owners.  You might be able to prove some money was not stolen, but you'll never be able to prove that all money was not stolen, especially if you aren't in possession of the money I say you stole.