[Puffer Fish]

Prove it.

What do you mean when you say "prove it"?

We have the details of the story, don't we?

Are you trying to claim that there may be more evidence in this story that I have not presented?

IF that is the case, then I will be satisfied if you concede that I would be correct IF additional evidence (aside from the details of the story I have presented) does not exist.

If you can't concede that, then trying to claim there is other evidence is kind of side-stepping and avoiding my whole argument, isn't it?

[Puffer Fish]

The court disagrees with you, end of story.

And what if the court, and the views of many people in society, are wrong and incorrect?

Then there would certainly be a big issue.

Do some people just refuse to believe that could happen? Like they can't imagine how a group of normal people or the courts could ever get it wrong?

Well, if so, pay attention to the details of this story and my argument, because I will explain.

I'm pointing out a big flaw in people's thinking, and it seems no one wants to see it.

[Godstud]

Anyone can see what is wrong there, if they were being honest.

You are dishonest. Your fallacy and appeal to reason fails as you present a false perception where rape isn't bad, or where you don't agree with a definition(fact).

And what if the court, and the views of many people in society, are wrong and incorrect?

What if carts flew? Would there be less birds? Your views are wrong and incorrect, and not the views of society, overall.

I'm pointing out a big flaw in people's thinking, and it seems no one wants to see it.

The only immense flaw here, is in your head, because you keep pushing a narrative where a convicted and proven sexual assaulter/molester, is innocent because you don't like that raping women is a crime.

I sure hope the FBI is monitoring you or that you are on a sexual offenders watch list.

[Puffer Fish]

You are dishonest. Your fallacy and appeal to reason fails as you present a false perception where rape isn't bad, or where you don't agree with a definition(fact).

What are you talking about? Where did I say rape wasn't bad?

I have only argued that we can't be sure rape happened, can only be more unsure that any specific one of these women's individual stories are true, and that certain types of situations do not constitute actual rape.

What if carts flew? Would there be less birds? Your views are wrong and incorrect, and not the views of society, overall.

In other words, you refuse to question the view of the court or decision of the jury.

There can be no argument with you then, if that's the case. If you're unwilling to discuss the evidence and argue based on the evidence, using reason and logic.

(I presume that we do not disagree on what the evidence is. The question is what conclusion should be drawn from that evidence, and how should the defendant be treated)

[Puffer Fish]

What I think it comes down to is,
if you agree that a big enough group of women can come forward and accuse a wealthy famous man of raping them each in separate incidents in the distant past, and they are all trying to, or have the opportunity to get lots of money for it,
then you would see nothing wrong with this verdict.

I think we will continue to see this phenomena grow in the future. It will be common for throngs of women to come forward trying to get their share of money after they see in the news that a wealthy famous celebrity has been accused of rape or sexual misconduct.

[Godstud]

When men like this abuse and defile enough women, even their power and status cannot protect them from the law. That's the takeaway from the Weinstein case, that you cannot deny @Puffer Fish, but you sure do want to.

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you mean when you say "prove it"?

We have the details of the story, don't we?

Are you trying to claim that there may be more evidence in this story that I have not presented?

You have failed to support your claim that the only evidence is the allegations of the women.

[Puffer Fish]

You have failed to support your claim that the only evidence is the allegations of the women.

Oh? Is that what this is about?

Tell us what other evidence there was.



(It's kind of hard to argue the lack of existence of something. Usually the burden of proof would be on the other side to provide at least one counterexample, like for example if you can cite any news article that mentions some other evidence. And there was a huge amount of news coverage and probably hundreds of news articles that exist about the case)

[Puffer Fish]

When men like this abuse and defile enough women, even their power and status cannot protect them from the law. That's the takeaway from the Weinstein case, that you cannot deny @Puffer Fish, but you sure do want to.

In this case his wealth made him a target.

(That and his known past sexual mistreatment of women. With that in place, it only took 1 false rape accusation to start the chain of events and, with a little extensive media coverage, cause false accusers to start piling on)

We both know (and this story demonstrates) that if a man is very wealthy, the courts will make him pay out very large amounts of money. Of course the accusers knew that before they came forward.
The huge news coverage over these accusations that were coming out at the time also told the public how rich Weinstein was.

[Godstud]

What a fucking load of horseshit, @Puffer Fish. Your pro-rape agenda is perverted and disgusting.

There are a great many people who are far wealthier than HW, who are NOT charged and convicted of sexual assault. HW's been wealthy for a very long time. That's not an excuse.

his known past sexual mistreatment of women

Yes. HW sexually assaulted women. That is why he got charged and convicted on the evidence(facts). That he hurt people is why they are suing him. That's a civil case, and not the criminal one where he got sent to prison, appealed, and failed.

There is no evidence that any false accusations were leveled against him. You make yourself look stupid by constantly implying this when the truth does not support this. It's just you pushing your "I love rapists!" agenda. Your rape support is fucking disgusting. Get help.

[Pants-of-dog]

Oh? Is that what this is about?

Tell us what other evidence there was.

No, I have already learned that there is more evidence and that you are wrong.

(It's kind of hard to argue the lack of existence of something. Usually the burden of proof would be on the other side to provide at least one counterexample, like for example if you can cite any news article that mentions some other evidence. And there was a huge amount of news coverage and probably hundreds of news articles that exist about the case)

And you could also look it up before making claims.

You did not, which is why you were caught in this error.

[Puffer Fish]

No, I have already learned that there is more evidence and that you are wrong.

It's going to be hard for us to have any logical discussion with you if you don't say what that supposed evidence is.

You did not, which is why you were caught in this error.

I don't think I'm "caught in any error", since you haven't given any specifics.

Hopefully I don't have to point out to you that screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not an argument.
Maybe you don't choose to actually partake in any real argument since it requires too much effort.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hopefully I don't have to point out to you that screaming "I'm right, you're wrong" is not an argument.

This seems to be the entire sum of your argument.

Again, you have not supported your claim that the only evidence is the allegations. You also never supported your claim that HW’s genital deformities were discussed by the accusers prior to the accusations.

[Puffer Fish]

Your pro-rape agenda is perverted and disgusting.

There is no "Pro-rape" agenda. You're being ridiculous.

There are a great many people who are far wealthier than HW, who are NOT charged and convicted of sexual assault. HW's been wealthy for a very long time.

I don't think you've been listening to what I've been saying. I explained how thus unfolded.

Weinstein had a long history of sexual mistreatment and taking advantage of women. (Which is not rape)
When the media suddenly begin covering this, the accusations started pouring out. Because some women realised he had done bad things to other women, and that made them more angry about what he had done to them, in the past.
When other women, whom I'm sure he never actually mistreated, started seeing all these accusations, they realised there was a financial opportunity.
It only took the first false rape accusation (following a long series of accusations of sexual misconduct) to get the ball rolling and bring down the avalanche.

That he hurt people is why they are suing him.

The only evidence he raped them is they say he raped them.

Individually. I'll point out again that none of these women has a separate witness to corroborate her individual story.

There is no evidence that any false accusations were leveled against him.

There is no real evidence that the accusations are true.

The "evidence" that at least many of the accusations are false comes from mathematics, statistics and probability theory.
The probability that 20 women could have been raped by him, and not one of them decided to come forward and file a police report until many years later.

Are you willing to have some intellectual honesty and concede that it's a near certainty many of these women are lying?

[Puffer Fish]

Again, you have not supported your claim that the only evidence is the allegations.

You are being ridiculous.

How can you expect me to provide "support" that something does not exist when you won't even provide specifics about what it is exactly you say might exist?

I think what you're doing is clearly a burden of proof fallacy.

You also never supported your claim that HW’s genital deformities were discussed by the accusers prior to the accusations.

That shows only that he did sleep with some of the accusers.

Do you think that proves it was full-out rape?


If I can describe unique features of your intimate body parts, does that mean I should be able to sue you for rape and automatically get money?


As I stated before, Weinstein sexually taking advantage of them and coercing them to sleep with him through his position as movie producer is not legal rape.
We shouldn't automatically believe he is guilty of full-out legal rape just because accusers say it happened. (Not when the court system is set up to award the accusers money)

[Pants-of-dog]

That shows only that he did sleep with some of the accusers.

Do you think that proves it was full-out rape?

If I can describe unique features of your intimate body parts, does that mean I should be able to sue you for rape and automatically get money?

As I stated before, Weinstein sexually taking advantage of them and coercing them to sleep with him through his position as movie producer is not legal rape.
We shouldn't automatically believe he is guilty of full-out legal rape just because accusers say it happened. (Not when the court system is set up to award the accusers money)

So you now agree that the genital deformities are evidence and that your previous claim (about the allegations being the only evidence) is wrong.

And thank you for reminding me that you have also failed to support your claim that it is not rape if the leverage is a job.

So you have one claim that is verified as incorrect and two unsupported claims.

Hop to it.

[MistyTiger]

As I stated before, Weinstein sexually taking advantage of them and coercing them to sleep with him through his position as movie producer is not legal rape.
We shouldn't automatically believe he is guilty of full-out legal rape just because accusers say it happened. (Not when the court system is set up to award the accusers money)

Sexual coercion is sexual assault. And sexual assault is a crime, on the same level as rape.

Sexual coercion is when a person pressures, tricks, threatens, or manipulates someone into having sex. It is a type of sexual assault because even if someone says yes, they are not giving their consent freely.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... l-coercion

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and same sex rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

Sexual assault - A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. It also includes verbal threats.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?tid=317&ty=tp

Both sexual assault and rape are nonconsensual and therefore are coerced. In legal cases, the presence of coercion is a strike against the defendant in the case.

[Rich]

The FBI stats say that at the most false accusations of rape are exceedingly rare. Only about 8% of all reported rapes might be false. That means 92% are real. An overwhelming amount.

How could the stats possibly say that? In most cases its impossible to categorically prove that a rape has taken place or that it hasn't. I'm not saying that here are not a large number of rapes, but just because there is no evidence of a false accusation , aside from the accused man's denial, doesn't mean its not a false accusation.

[Godstud]

There is no "Pro-rape" agenda. You're being ridiculous.

You do it by defending rapists all the time. You're a pro-rape advocate.

The only evidence he raped them is they say he raped them.

The only evidence he raped them is they say he raped them.

There is no real evidence that the accusations are true.

False. There was evidence that the accusations were true, but you don't want to accept them, because you have already stated that you don't think sexually assaulting women is a bad thing.

Are you willing to have some intellectual honesty and concede that it's a near certainty many of these women are lying?

You have not intellectual honesty so that's ironic. Where is the evidence that any of these women lied? You claim they are lying but can't prove it. had they been lying, HW would not be in prison being sued. Your argument is irrelevant and childish. People do not get imprisoned on 'he said-she said'. He was convicted on 3 of the 7 charges.

Harvey Weinstein is a rapist and sexual predator. Try not to be like him @Puffer Fish. You seem to be the kind of person who has a low respect for, or hates women.

[ingliz]

The "evidence" that at least many of the accusations are false comes from mathematics, statistics and probability theory.

Wrong!

False Reporting