Puffer Fish wrote:You don't seem to understand the problem with the lawsuit system in America. You don't seem to understand the problem with ordering that women be given money because they were raped. All the more and especially so when giving them money just because they claim they were raped (WHICH IS HAPPENING, despite some wanting to deny it, or not willing to believe that).
And there becomes a problem with believing one woman in a lawsuit just because another woman is also claiming that man did the same thing, trying to get money.
First of all the women are not witnesses to the same crime. Second, both stand to financially benefit from their accusations.
I believe this is going to cause a phenomena where lots of women out there are going to pile on, after a story gets media coverage, when they know the accused man has lots of money.
And let's face it, another part of the lawsuit system is that the alleged victims get more money if the perpetrator was rich.
Because of this phenomena, we should NOT be more likely to believe one woman in a lawsuit just because other (even a large number of other) women are saying he did the same thing to them.
And as I pointed out before, yet another problem is the statute of limitations.
All these issues combine together and compound the problem.
Stop paying out money to women for sex crimes, and it will become a lot easier to believe a woman (a random woman with no relation to the man) when she accuses him of a sex crime.
This idea of paying women money for alleged sex crimes done against them was totally made up along the way. The concept didn't even exist before the 1980s.
You do not seem to understand that in a lawsuit, the winning party is awarded damages, usually in the form of money. There is no law that forbids another woman to file a lawsuit against the same man that is already involved in at least one lawsuit. Hmmm, maybe the man is actually guilty.
Your argument seems to be that the fact that all these women claiming that Weinstein raped them is proof that he is innocent. WTF? What makes you think he is innocent? Do you know him personally? Or are you Weinstein?
A rich man like him can afford to pay out money to accusers. Why feel sorry for him? I think he is getting what he deserves. And besides, if the women do not try to get money out of him, it's not like he will donate his money to charity. He does not seem like the charitable type.
And, do you know how to quote in one post rather than doing multiple posts?
If she didn't report it within 15 months after it happened, then yes. I think she's being unreasonable if she expects the man to be punished after reporting it 15 years later. And she's just being crazy and totally unreasonable if she expects to be able to get money after all that time. (Although it seems now that various legal jurisdictions seem to be pandering to these unreasonable expectations, allowing them to become a reality)
Now, hopefully you are not confusing being reluctant to believe a woman with blaming her and saying it's her fault. Because those two are not the same thing.
If the statute of limitations is not up, then a woman is within her rights to file suit against the alleged aggressor. Maybe Weinstein really is guilty of all the allegations. Maybe you think he is not guilty because he is a rich and powerful man in the industry, but wealth and status do not make someone innocent or make them blameless. Men in power will try to exert their power over the weaker or lowly people by using force or blackmail. I believe that he used his position to get what he wanted from women. Men like him see women as dolls or toys. He does not respect them. And it seems like you have little respect for women as well so you must idolize him.
Keep in mind that by having an institution that hands women money based on legal outcomes, you are taking away from women's credibility.
You do not understand the legal system in the US. The court does not hand money over. There is a lengthy TRIAL process in court where both sides get days or weeks to call in their witnesses and show the court their evidence. Trial can go on for years even. Then a jury thinks about what it has seen and heard. The jury verdict could be arrived at hours later or days later, depending on how soon they reach a consensus. Then the judge will read the jury's verdict and then the damages are awarded to the injured/winning party. Trial is not a quick and easy process as you seem to think.
Now, are you going to ask me again if these women are completely blameless?
What are you on about? Why would I ask you a question like this, knowing that you have such a low opinion of women and you seem to be besotted with Weinstein?
When a woman's trying to get money, or may be trying to get money, trashing them is fair game.
It would be UNFAIR to the accused not to do it.
Wow, you sound like a true misogynist. You are quick to trash the women even if most of them are actually speaking the truth about Weinstein. What is UNFAIR is that Weinstein is powerful and rich and for so long, no one dared to speak out against him. I believe that he is corrupt, mean, soulless and he took advantage of women before his fall from grace in the industry. He is just another corrupt fat cat who thinks that money and status allow him to do whatever the hell he wants, including abusing women and lording it over them.