Was Harvey Weinstein really guilty? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15276293
What is the point of disputing Weinstein's guilt over all the court cases and from all the allegations? I fail to see how it matters. Those who try to defend Weinstein, what's in it for them? Are they on his payroll or are they members of his twisted fan club? How like the admirers of the rich to want to excuse the suspicious, sketchy behavior of someone just because of the fact that the target of all the drama and troubles is a wealthy man. Are all crimes supposed to be washed away because the person is loaded with tons and tons of cash? Are the women liars because a lot of them happen to be actresses? What's with this society that trashes women because of their career or because of their identities. So you blame the woman for what happened to her? WTF? How is it the woman's fault? :eh:
#15276326
MistyTiger wrote:Are all crimes supposed to be washed away because the person is loaded with tons and tons of cash? Are the women liars because a lot of them happen to be actresses?

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.
#15276327
MistyTiger wrote:Are the women liars because a lot of them happen to be actresses? What's with this society that trashes women because of their career or because of their identities. So you blame the woman for what happened to her? WTF? How is it the woman's fault? :eh:

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.

Some women in some situations are simply going to be more credible than others. Is it "fair" to the alleged victim? No. But that isn't a good enough reason why it shouldn't be done.

Keep in mind that by having an institution that hands women money based on legal outcomes, you are taking away from women's credibility.
#15276329
MistyTiger wrote:So you blame the woman for what happened to her? WTF? How is it the woman's fault? :eh:

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.
#15276330
When my grandmother was a teenager, she told me she had a dream of going off to Hollywood and trying to be an actress. (That was the trendy thing at the time, lots of girls dreamed of being movie stars) Well, her mother wouldn't let her. She knew her daughter would be likely to get taken advantage of. And my grandmother later in her life totally conceded that her mother had likely been right.
It was common practice for producers to pressure young actresses to sleep with them in exchange for getting the role. These aspiring young actresses were desperate to get an important part and be able to break into the career, since the majority of aspiring actresses were not able to make it.

(And keep in mind that this was back at a time when women had to be age 21 to be able to marry without their father's consent, so the parent's say over their child did not just end after the child turned 18 )

Back then (say around 1930) abortions were only going on in three places in the country: New York City, Chicago, and Hollywood.

Now, are you going to ask me again if these women are completely blameless?
#15276351
Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction upheld by appeals court
A New York appeals court on Thursday upheld Harvey Weinstein’s rape conviction and 23-year prison sentence, rejecting the former movie mogul’s claim that the judge at his landmark #MeToo trial unfairly allowed women to testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.

The ruling by a five-judge panel in the state’s intermediate appeals court affirmed one of the highest-profile verdicts to date in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began with a flood of allegations against Weinstein.

https://apnews.com/article/harvey-weins ... 0ed6ea4803
#15276381
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? :hmm:

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. :lol:

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. :roll:

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.
#15276391
MistyTiger wrote: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.

That does NOT mean that the reasoning used to put the defendant in prison is going to be fair.
You don't seem to understand that. This story is an example of that, I believe.

Misty Tiger, everything you have stated in your post is BESIDES THE POINT to all the argument points I made.

MistyTiger wrote:Wow, you sound like a true misogynist.

You seem to be kind of emotional there.
Of course there IS going to be some inherent trade-off between allowing victims to get justice and ensuring the rights and fairness to the accused.
This whole issue almost kind of feels like a men versus women conflict.
#15276393
MistyTiger wrote: You are quick to trash the women even if most of them are actually speaking the truth about Weinstein.

Well, we don't know that it is the truth about Weinstein, and there are several reasons to think it may not be.
These women waited many years after the alleged incidents to come forward, and they only came forward after they found out about Weinstein in the media and saw that other women were already accusing him of things and trying to sue him for money.

You know what I think? Even if you believed there was a 99% chance Weinstein raped women, NONE of those women should get any money. We simply can't be sure which of those women are telling the truth. It was too easy in this situation for women to come forward, accuse him of rape and try to get money. Millions of women were watching the news, and all it took was for any one of these women to realise she had been in close proximity to where Weinstein was at some point in the past. (He attended many social events and travelled a lot)


I'm going to ask you a question. What do you think the statistical chances are that more than 20 women could have been raped by a man (and I mean truly raped) and not one of them chose to come forward and report it to police soon after it happened?
If we suppose that these women were raped, then these women waited years and years!

In my view, that right there PROVES the majority of these women are lying. (Mathematical proof)

And you have to ask yourself, if the majority of all these women are lying, isn't it very possible they all are?
#15276426
@Puffer Fish

Statistically...

Many sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

In my view, that right there PROVES that most of these women are not lying (Mathematical proof).

And you have to ask yourself, if most of these women are telling the truth, isn't it possible they all are?


:)
#15276442
Puffer Fish wrote:Well, we don't know that it is the truth about Weinstein, and there are several reasons to think it may not be.
These women waited many years after the alleged incidents to come forward, and they only came forward after they found out about Weinstein in the media and saw that other women were already accusing him of things and trying to sue him for money.

You know what I think? Even if you believed there was a 99% chance Weinstein raped women, NONE of those women should get any money. We simply can't be sure which of those women are telling the truth. It was too easy in this situation for women to come forward, accuse him of rape and try to get money. Millions of women were watching the news, and all it took was for any one of these women to realise she had been in close proximity to where Weinstein was at some point in the past. (He attended many social events and travelled a lot)


I'm going to ask you a question. What do you think the statistical chances are that more than 20 women could have been raped by a man (and I mean truly raped) and not one of them chose to come forward and report it to police soon after it happened?
If we suppose that these women were raped, then these women waited years and years!

In my view, that right there PROVES the majority of these women are lying. (Mathematical proof)

And you have to ask yourself, if the majority of all these women are lying, isn't it very possible they all are?


The chances that more than 20 women are raped by this man is probable or very likely. A lot of rapes never get reported. Why do women wait so long to come out and talk about it? Fear. Shame. But time has made them realize that they got to come out and say it. If they do not say it now, will they ever? You don't understand. But when you get to a certain age, you realize that it is better to say the truth late than never at all. The truth is the truth. The truth should not stay secret forever.
#15276529
ingliz wrote:Statistically...

Many sexual assaults are not reported to the police.

In my view, that right there PROVES that most of these women are not lying (Mathematical proof).

And you have to ask yourself, if most of these women are telling the truth, isn't it possible they all are?


:)

We have no scientific evidence on this of any value. To properly study this would require us to observe people in sexual and other private encounters without their knowledge and then interview them on differing time scales after the event. Both men and women's memory of events are highly unreliable. All view points on these matters are highly subjective and prone to bias.

My own subjective view is that there are many cases of rape and sexual assault (I'm assuming just for the sake of argument that we could all all agree and apply a definition for these, which we can't), where the man genuinely believes he has not committed an offense and there are many cases where a woman genuinely believes she has been raped or sexually assaulted where she hasn't.

The way people remember an event can change over time. I would suggest that people's memory of events connected with their previous partners are particularly unreliable.
Last edited by Rich on 11 Jun 2023 14:31, edited 1 time in total.
#15276639
I doubt Weinstein would be in prison if there wasn't an abundance of evidence that proved that he was guilty. He's rich. That makes him harder to convict in the USA. Your empathy, @Puffer Fish, for a serial abuser is oddly misplaced.
#15276783
Puffer Fish wrote:

You seem to be kind of emotional there.
Of course there IS going to be some inherent trade-off between allowing victims to get justice and ensuring the rights and fairness to the accused.
This whole issue almost kind of feels like a men versus women conflict.


Do you understand the definition of misogynist? Because in a lot of what you post, your anti-women attitude is glaringly obvious. You have not considered the possibility that at least one woman is telling the truth and really did get abused by Weinstein. You want to believe in his innocence. Weinstein is a prime example of a misogynist. He just uses them and then discards them. He does not respect women. Why should he? He has money. He can buy women. He thinks he can buy everything. You cannot buy respect, love or truth. He is soulless and heartless.

It IS a men vs. women conflict in a way. Men like Weinstein, do exist and they mistreat women and think the women will not say a word about it. But some women are uncomfortable with keeping secrets and they have to come clean about it. Coming clean is actually the healthier thing to do and I'm sure some of these women have seen professional therapists and been advised to be honest. I am not a therapist but I believe that the best way to live is by being honest and overcoming pain and obstacles. All humans suffer. Women often feel like they have no voice but I am learning that women do have a voice and should use it. No one should suffer in silence and try to sweep it under the rug. The best way is to face the problem and deal with it.
#15276787
Puffer Fish wrote:That does NOT mean that the reasoning used to put the defendant in prison is going to be fair.
You don't seem to understand that. This story is an example of that, I believe.

Misty Tiger, everything you have stated in your post is BESIDES THE POINT to all the argument points I made.


You seem to be kind of emotional there.
Of course there IS going to be some inherent trade-off between allowing victims to get justice and ensuring the rights and fairness to the accused.
This whole issue almost kind of feels like a men versus women conflict.


Dude, Weisteine is super rich. He has the best lawyers and defence the money can realistically buy with the best connection a person can possibly have. There is no emotion here if the court found him guilty and appeal was useless.
#15276927
JohnRawls wrote:Dude, Weisteine is super rich. He has the best lawyers and defence the money can realistically buy with the best connection a person can possibly have. There is no emotion here if the court found him guilty and appeal was useless.

That argument is not logical. (I mean that argument does not go very far)

Lots of money to afford really good lawyers does not always guarantee justice.

Rather than look at the actual facts and logic behind the decision, you seem to just want to place your trust in the process, that somehow you think it will result in the correct decision.

Part of my motivation for posting stories like this is to demonstrate and make people aware that the "process" does not always result in a fair, logical, and correct outcome.

It seems difficult for normal people to correctly think about complex issues. Which is why the jury is no guarantee of justice and logic.
#15276930
Godstud wrote:I doubt Weinstein would be in prison if there wasn't an abundance of evidence that proved that he was guilty.

You seem to be ignoring the whole point.


The trouble is, throngs of mostly random women who see a story in the media can gang up on a guy, all accusing him and trying to get money.

The only evidence is the claims of these women.

The trouble is, lots of people don't see a problem with this. Just like YOU don't see a problem with it.
#15276931
Claims are evidence, as a person's past history impacts and demonstrates their behavior. Enough of this and it can establish a set behavior.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Although I hadn't seriously expected that my favor[…]

First I want to say that I have not been intereste[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@Pants-of-dog The topic is indeed genocide(which[…]

Chile hosted the Pan American games earlier this y[…]