By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Aeolus451 on 17 October 2017
Edit Thread
SpokenTruth said:
Aeolus451 said:

Nonsensical as usual. "Skepticism should never be your default"? Oh really. Isn't skepticism the basis of how justice in the entire world works? Someone reports a crime, it's investigated in every way to lead to the culprit and to ensure there's no room for doubt in their guilt or innocence. You can't take someone's word on face value when it comes to justice. Anything said as to be treated as questionable unless it's verified. In situations like this, anything the accuser and the accused says has to be looked into before you treat what is said as fact or true because it would be assuming the accused is guilty until proven otherwise. 

I mean skeptical that a women is filing a false report.   You should never be skeptical that a person is filing a false report.  That doesn't mean you have to presume guilt on an a given attacker.  That's separate and I completely agree with you 100%.  Innocent until proven guilty.  But we're not talking about the guilt of a given suspect, we're talking about a person filing a false report.

Better stated, for all people that are shot and killed, is your default stance skepticism that the person was shot and killed?  No, that would be ridiculous.  The person is obviously shot and dead and it would take unusual circumstances for a person to appear shot and appear dead and yet not be either.

For all people that claim they were robbed, is your default stance skepticism that they were indeed robbed?  
For all people that claim they were stabbed, is your default stance skepticism that they were indeed stabbed?
For all people that claim they were raped, is your default stance skepticism that they were indeed raped?

The guilt of the robber, stabber and rapist is subject to the process of law and are innocent until guilty but you don't harbor initial doubt about the person being robbed or the person being stabbed....so why have doubts the person was raped?

o_O.Q said:

i didn't say anything against implementing these strategies

 

personally i think better strategies would be teaching women to protect themselves, having them carry weapons such as mace or knives etc etc etc, but when solutions like these are suggested, then its called victim blaming or some silly nonsense like that... and then nothing gets done and the problem continues to perpetuate because tbh i don't think many people care about rational solutions

 

finally i suppose all i would say otherwise is that people should be wary about implementing increasingly stringent safety measures on something as complex as sexual interaction... because as i've said, someday if you are involved in sexual activity yourself then the very measures you put into place could be used unfairly against you 

Yeah, that IS victim blaming.  You want to change the attitude and actions of the victims rather than the attitude and actions of the attackers.  That's backwards and simply accepts rape, assaults and attacks as an inevitability that cannot be prevented.

You'd rather teach your daughter to fear men than teach your son to respect women. How can you not see how misguided that is?

Yes to the three questions about robbery and what not. You should at least make sure there's no holes in their story before you take their word for it 100%. If there's any holes, it should be investigated. It's rarely clear cut and people's lives will be affected by it. People lie and for a myriad of reasons including for nonsensical ones. Should we trust everone's word when it comes to car accidents or how about in cases of self-defense shootings?