[Pants-of-dog]

In your opinion. Perhaps even morally. But not in reality or according to the law.

This seems incorrect.

Prove it.

[Puffer Fish]

This seems incorrect.

Prove it.

Given the specifics of what we were discussing, your comments seem to express a level of extreme intellectual immaturity.

But your feelings do help demonstrate something for the rest of us.
A jury composed of people like you might not care so much about whether a real rape had actually taken place.
The simple knowledge that he had probably taken advantage of a long string of women was enough reason to be willing to find him guilty of rape, even without being sure any of the women were telling the truth about being physically forced.

[Godstud]

The only person demonstrating not only immaturity, but immorality, is you, @Puffer Fish.

But your feelings do help demonstrate something for the rest of us.

Ironic, considering that your entire argument is based on "I think", or "I feel". You constantly use feelings to justify your positions, when facts and logic contradict what you say. The facts and logic do not support your beliefs.

Harvey Weinstein was convicted of multiple sexual assaults. His appeal failed because of the overwhelming evidence against him. He is now being sued in civil court, for damages. It's only fair that he pays some back to the people he victimized, as some of them contributed to his success. It's also fair because deserve compensation(not always available) for being victimized.

You would not be arguing for him if he was poor. You ignore the reality of the situation. If people victimize other people, then they have to pay compensation (when it's possible - not everyone is rich), in addition to the penalty that society places upon them.

[Puffer Fish]

Ironic, considering that your entire argument is based on "I think", or "I feel". You constantly use feelings to justify your positions, when facts and logic contradict what you say. The facts and logic do not support your beliefs.

Harvey Weinstein was convicted of multiple sexual assaults. His appeal failed because of the overwhelming evidence against him. He is now being sued in civil court, for damages. It's only fair that he pays some back to the people he victimized, as some of them contributed to his success. It's also fair because deserve compensation(not always available) for being victimized.

Once again, not a logical argument.

I argued that he was wrongly convicted and wrongly ordered to pay money, and that there was a very problematic issue about the reasoning they used to convict him.
All you can say is to repeat that he was convicted and ordered to pay money, as if that's somehow some sort of argument that they were right.

[Godstud]

Once again, not a logical argument.

Evidence is logical. Your feelings about it, are not.

I argued that he was wrongly convicted and wrongly ordered to pay money

And because of this delusion you are wrong. He was not wrongly convicted and not wrongly sued. He was punished and justly treated, according to the law.

The evidence was overwhelming, and your idiotic belief is irrelevant. You have posed no relevant argument, at any time. All your "arguments" have been refuted, easily. You are a pro-rape advocate because you constantly defend the worst scumbags in our society.

FFS, GET HELP.

[Puffer Fish]

If people victimize other people, then they have to pay compensation [...], in addition to the penalty that society places upon them.

If they do, that's a presumption and a hypothetical there, because we do not know that for sure.

You're totally glossing over and ignoring the real issue, which is did he actually rape those women?

And I see you keep playing the vague semantics game. Using the word "victimize", which could refer either to rape, or to him just sexually taking advantage of those women.

If it wasn't actually rape, should those women still get all that money? Should Weinstein even have been imprisoned, or imprisoned for that long?

[Puffer Fish]

Evidence is logical. Your feelings about it, are not.

The evidence was overwhelming, and your idiotic belief is irrelevant.

You're just being immature now.

I already told you that just saying "evidence" is just vague talk, doesn't address any actual logic.

You're just sidestepping around the actual point.

[Pants-of-dog]

Given the specifics of what we were discussing, your comments seem to express a level of extreme intellectual immaturity.

But your feelings do help demonstrate something for the rest of us.
A jury composed of people like you might not care so much about whether a real rape had actually taken place.
The simple knowledge that he had probably taken advantage of a long string of women was enough reason to be willing to find him guilty of rape, even without being sure any of the women were telling the truth about being physically forced.

I did not ask for your uninformed opinions about me.

Again, prove the claim that forcing someone to have sex with you is not rape if the coercion happens to be employment.

From what I can gather of the laws, merely threatening this is sexual harassment while actually doing it is rape.

[Puffer Fish]

I did not ask for your uninformed opinions about me.

Do you even know what we are talking about? Have you managed to keep track of the conversation?

It seems like you are not.

Again, prove the claim that forcing someone to have sex with you is not rape if the coercion happens to be employment.

I think that statement you made entirely speaks for itself.

I don't know what world you live in, but it sounds wacky and kind of insane to any conservative.

Let me ask you: Do you honestly believe this? You don't see anything the slightest bit questionable or eyebrow-raising about this claim?


(Let me also point out that it wasn't even like a long-term job she already held either. She was trying to GET a temporary 9-month-or-so gig that would then help allow her to break into the acting field)

[Godstud]

You're just being immature now.

No. I am having to repeat myself, as if to a child, that facts and reality make their make-believe ideas, irrelevant.

I already told you that just saying "evidence" is just vague talk, doesn't address any actual logic.

Evidence is not "vague talk". It's FACTS. Evidence is composed of facts and information.

When discussing the guilt of a person, then evidence is the most important set of facts, in existence.

You are not using logic to discuss anything. You are basing it all on how you feel about HW, and inject your inherent pro-rape bias, that says he did nothing wrong.

If they do, that's a presumption and a hypothetical there, because we do not know that for sure.

We do know. There is evidence of it. Once there is evidence of something, it ceases to be hypothetical.

You're totally glossing over and ignoring the real issue, which is did he actually rape those women?

Yes. He did. How you feel about that, is irrelevant.

Using the word "victimize", which could refer either to rape, or to him just sexually taking advantage of those women.

Both are cases of victimization.

Victimize:
single (someone) out for cruel or unjust treatment.

If it wasn't actually rape, should those women still get all that money? Should Weinstein even have been imprisoned, or imprisoned for that long?

Yes. He didn't do it one time, but MANY times. He is very lucky to only have gotten 16 years. I would have handed down a much harsher sentence to a man who has victimized women for decades, and shown no remorse for his criminal behavior.

[Pants-of-dog]

I don't know what world you live in, but it sounds wacky and kind of insane to any conservative.

I did not ask for your opinion about the law.

I am telling you what the law is in California where HW was convicted.

[MistyTiger]

[quote="Puffer Fish”]You are trying to cloud the issue.
That is not directly relevant to the argument or point I am making.[/quote]

No, I am trying to make sense out of an argument that seems to make very little sense and is mainly based on negativity and disagreeableness, because you are pro-Weinstein and anti-women in this whole HW scandal.

If they make a wrong decision based on faulty logic (which you seem to support) in the first place, then it's very likely they could make that same wrong decision again, in a retrial, or appeal.

What you consider “faulty logic”, is the logic that has been in place for centuries. The earliest lawyers in Western society were Greek, if I’m not mistaken, and the US just adopted many of the Greek law customs and procedures and also some passed on from England. This logic is well established and no one has tried to overhaul it or overturn it in all this time.
The judge is only human but his/her rulings are based on evidence, prior rulings and through observation and examination of witnesses and the other actors appearing before the court. Here, actors are the players in the court proceedings – plaintiff or defendant. Once the highest court makes a ruling, no one can question it. HW can try appealing all he wants but if no judge wants to grant an appeal, then that’s it.

The point is the logic and reasoning they are using to decide if the man is guilty in a case like this.
That's what the argument is about.

It is useless to argue about the logic and reasoning when you do not want to understand the legal procedures in the US. It has been like this for centuries. No one will change the process just because of a rich white man who thinks he should be pronounced innocent and then be free to go back to his Hollywood whoring days.

I think you are side stepping the whole real issue. How will the court decide if she has a valid claim? That is the question.

They look at the facts in the case, the evidence in the case. The court considers that HW was an influential force in Hollywood. He commanded respect but also fear. They look at her interactions with him and if any of his staff can back up her statements because they were witnesses and they understood HW’s habits and routines. Anyone close to HW can be called as a “character witness”.

Emotion, or totally leaving it up entirely to an individual case by case basis, is not a good idea.

Emotion is not the main reason why HW has been declared guilty. It should be on a case by case basis, because each rape/abusive event is different. There were different circumstances and different dynamics between the persons involved.

I'm pointing out a problem here. You don't seem to want to look at that issue.

Your inability to consider anyone except HW is a problem. You have a clear bias towards his side. You DO NOT want to believe that anyone speaking against Weinstein could actually be telling the truth. What, so HW is perfect and can do no wrong? I find that unbelievable.

[MistyTiger]

@Puffer Fish

YOU CANNOT assume Weinstein's innocence UNLESS you were with him every single day and you witnessed him avoiding these women. Can you say with certainty that he was never ALONE with them and NEVER flirted with them or INVITED them to his hotel room? Did he really keep his hands and his genitals away from them? Were you with him EVERY MOMENT? No?

Then you have no way of knowing and you should not be complaining about the guilty verdicts.

[Puffer Fish]

I don't think rich men should be made to pay money for rape.

Especially when the evidence comes only from allegations made by victims and we cannot be completely sure it happened.

In my opinion, the standard practice for handling rape should be to send the man to prison for only (maybe) 3 to 4 years, if the evidence is only the accusation from a victim (if we as a society decide to send the man to prison at all), much longer than that if there is some solid evidence to back up the claims of the victims, and that NO payouts of money should be involved.

The problem with the Weinstein case was the use of the allegations of other women about separate alleged incidents as the "evidence" for all the other allegations.

Like there is no real evidence for any individual accusation, but some people want to believe them all because of the high number of accusations.

I just think there is a huge problem when there do not exist 2 witnesses to corroborate any single alleged crime.

You can argue it is "evidence" technically, but in my opinion it is not the type of solid primary evidence that would exist if, say we had a witness who observed something that corroborated the details of another woman's specific story.

In other words, "I saw him go into her bedroom and then heard a woman screaming" is much stronger supporting evidence for one woman's rape claim than "He raped me too".

[Puffer Fish]

Yes. He didn't do it one time, but MANY times.

You seem to be playing the semantics game again. Let me point out again that "victimize" is not necessarily rape.
I don't like having to guess at what you are referring to.

There is no evidence that he committed rape "many" times except for the claims of a long list of women who saw that he was already being accused by other women on the news, and who were all trying to get lots of money.

What a terrible insane law and court practice that exists. If enough women pile on and accuse a rich man of rape they can all get lots of money from him.

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

[Puffer Fish]

YOU CANNOT assume Weinstein's innocence UNLESS you were with him every single day and you witnessed him avoiding these women.

Is there a witness accusing Weinstein of rape who did not stand to get lots of money by accusing him?

No.

The first woman who accused him of rape might have just been trying to make sure he was punished for taking advantage of her (and many other women) years ago.

Then, other random women saw that on the news and realized this was their golden opportunity.

Keep in mind, we're talking about desperate washed-up actresses who need money.

[Puffer Fish]

Can you say with certainty that he was never ALONE with them and NEVER flirted with them or INVITED them to his hotel room? Did he really keep his hands and his genitals away from them?

Even if we assume he probably took advantage of some of them, we cannot be sure which women he actually took advantage of.

So none of the women should be given any money.


If you just hand out money to women for accusing a man, that is INVITING false allegations. This is evil. And unjust.

If you support this, you are almost as guilty as the women who lie and falsely accuse, in my opinion.


At least only putting men in prison for a long time does not create the same sort of motivation for false accusations that paying out money does.

[Puffer Fish]

What you consider “faulty logic”, is the logic that has been in place for centuries. The earliest lawyers in Western society were Greek, if I’m not mistaken, and the US just adopted many of the Greek law customs and procedures and also some passed on from England. This logic is well established and no one has tried to overhaul it or overturn it in all this time.

That's not true.
How long has it been since a woman knew she could get lots of money by accusing a man, when there was no other specific evidence it actually happened to her?

I think that is very recent.


Even in biblical days, it required TWO witnesses to verify that rape actually happened.

None of these women have a separate witness that can verify or help support their story. Rather it's just a lot of women with completely separate stories.

[Puffer Fish]

Why waste your time constantly on rape themes? What you write reflects what you are preoccupied with in your head.

Because this seems to a running theme with Leftists and progressives, passing new laws that will have insane outcomes, and jury decisions that can very easily allow innocent men to get punished and have all their money taken.

People need to stand up against that.

What is the Left's obsession with rape and victimhood?

They're trying to reform and change the laws and society.

You honestly think the laws weren't good enough in the 1970s? That women weren't protected enough from rape then?

The Left wants to mess with the laws and social convention but does not truly know what they're doing. And then they refuse to see the negative results of their own policies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Like there is no real evidence for any individual accusation,

Prove it.