"This is why we don't come forward" women say after Ghomeshi not guilty decision

[THE Bigzoman]

I'll never understand why people that are obviously intelligent waste their time trying to change the mind of a troll. It is entertaining to watch though.

He's not even the troll in the thread though.


Wanna know who the best troll i've seen in a long time is? Fucking Tenissance.

You know you're doing it right when the community knows what you're doing, why you're doing it, and fucking hate you for doing it, YET STILL find the time to view/post in your threads frequently.


And for that, I tip my hat to Tenissance. Truly the Ron Burgundy/Jaylock of our time.


What he does is fucking art

[Simulacrum]

Video of him not beating or fucking them at any point in their relationships. Also video or other form of admission by the accusers that they lied for whatever reason.

Your most reasonable proof of innocence is complete, unbroken video documentation of all his relationships with all his accusers?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'll never understand why people that are obviously intelligent waste their time trying to change the mind of a troll. It is entertaining to watch though.

Trying to explain why innocence and acquittal are two separate things to a brick wall should have been my first clue.

[Steve French]

He's not even the troll in the thread though.


Wanna know who the best troll i've seen in a long time is? Fucking Tenissance.

You know you're doing it right when the community knows what you're doing, why you're doing it, and fucking hate you for doing it, YET STILL find the time to view/post in your threads frequently.


And for that, I tip my hat to Tenissance. Truly the Ron Burgundy/Jaylock of our time.


What he does is fucking art

TBH I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, I just mean in general it's always the same people posting well thought out meaningful responses to some trolls 2 sentence post. Sometimes it's fun to read I just don't understand why they do it. I'll have to agree about tennis I've said it before and ill say it again, every time i end up in one of his threads i find my self shaking my head in disappointment...he got me again.

[eillas]

Your most reasonable proof of innocence is complete, unbroken video documentation of all his relationships with all his accusers?

The women lied and changed stories. They said they didn't contact him after the incident. Emails, and letters proved otherwise. They said they were angry, letters and emails showed otherwise. Two of the three of them said that they didn't have much contact with each other. Evidence shown about 5k messages sent in between one another. They became unreliable witnesses, and with that it sunk their prosecution.

Between the lying or forgetting; it gave a reasonable doubt on the prosecution story.

edit: It wasn't one lie, it was multiple lies, and holes poked into the prosecution. Remember Defense only needs to disprove or poke enough holes in the Prosecution story. Which they did.

[Gheld]

Trying to explain why innocence and acquittal are two separate things to a brick wall should have been my first clue.

Judicially they are the same thing. If you are tried and acquitted you can't be tried for the same crime again. You are innocent in the eyes of the law by default. So if you are tried, and a conviction is not reached, guilt is not proven and you are still innocent in the eyes of the law.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Judicially they are the same thing. If you are tried and acquitted you can't be tried for the same crime again. You are innocent in the eyes of the law by default. So if you are tried, and a conviction is not reached, guilt is not proven and you are still innocent in the eyes of the law.

And yet innocence is a word you'll not hear used as it carries a very specific meaning behind it.

Doing government work, you learn just how fucking nuanced terminology can be, and why you absolutely do not want to use the wrong terminology. Innocence is only important as a term going into a trial. After that the only time where it's at all uttered in any official capacity is if someone is trying to beyond a shadow of a doubt prove their innocence for the purpose of counter suing.

[NoiseTank13]

You are arguing over really fucking dumb semantic shit.

Jesus christ.

[Zeth Hawkins]

"We believe survivors"

And people still try to argue that feminism isn't a religion

[Cthulhu 2020]

You are arguing over really fucking dumb semantic shit.

Jesus christ.

The arguing ended a page ago, it's really just clarifying now that Sargon is gone.

[kamuimac]

Do you think he was guilty?

it doesnt matter what do you think what matters are evidence and you do not want to live in country where they can judge you based on "what do you think"

[Deleted]

Gotta love it when SJWs prove what bad people they are by supporting criminal conspiracies to imprison innocent men just because it fits their hateful feminist narrative

[May90]

"We believe survivors"

And people still try to argue that feminism isn't a religion

What does feminism have to do with a bunch of crazies?

[Ninjavitis]

A case about sexual assault... Let's flop ma boobs and hope people takes me seriously.
Lolwut?

Didn't you know the most effective way to protest sexual objectification is through nudity? Just like how tomorrow I plan on protesting breathing by sucking oxygen through a scuba suit! Logic!

[Deleted]

Presumption of innocence occurs going into the trial, acquittal is a lack of evidence brought forward to bring guilt upon him, but is never an absolute absolvement of all wrongdoing. Is legaleze hard for you?

It seems you need a fresher.
All human beings are born into a state of blissful innocence - they never cease to be innocent, unless, and this is strictly true, a court finds them guilty, and that verdict is not overturned, as for the second part:

...The court is not the arbiter of reality, they are the arbiters of the societal implications.
all people who are found not guilty, must be treated as if they are innocent, regardless of whether or not they are, and all guilty people are treated as if they are guilty, again, regardless of objective reality.

last time this shit came up.

The SJWs will say he was guilty.

The militantly zealous anti-SJW's society will say he was innocent.

and the more important thing, The courts said he is innocent.
making one side (your side) objectively wrong.

No bones, seriously, take your own advice. This very post is YOU subjecting to Sargon's Law. If he is "innocent", IT MEANS SHE FALSELY ACCUSED HIM.

No it doesn't - she could be mistaken, and have been raped by someone who purported to be said person, she could be mistaken as to what constitutes rape, or she could be schizophrenic - any one of those and she is not making a false accusation.

Innocence presumes that he never did anything ever, and that she has maliciously tried to smear his name.

no it doesn't.

This is why things like "not guilty" exists, so that BOTH PARTIES are absolved, because innocence would then mean she is guilty. He could go on to absolutely without a doubt prove his innocence in order to counter sue her, but that would shift the burdens.

Jesus fuck, legaleze never was your specialty I guess.

Literally nothing in this was, legally or otherwise, remotely correct.

[Torais]

Wait, you mean to say court trials are determined on actual evidence and not raw emotion?

What a crazy concept, indeed!

[Arenis]

Women's groups said the ruling, and in particular the judge's scathing comments about inconsistencies in the three complainants' stories during the trial, shines a spotlight on everything that's wrong with a system designed to find justice in such cases.

I haven't read his exact words, but isn't this actually the right thing to do? When several stories just don't add up to a believable whole, it shouldn't be regarded as "the truth"?

[Yarathir]

Change "women" to SJWs and you got it.

I know plenty of women who are sane individuals and plenty of men who are ridiculously ideological sjws.

So much this. So many chill women and insane men.

As well as many insane women and chill men.

It's almost as if different people can be different.

One point you can make is that women are by far more catered to when it comes to the eternal victimhood narrative, which may be tempting for many women to resist, or take grasp of impressionable young women who truly want to do good and fall into that pit.

But then, the same is done to indoctrinate men, only with the role switched from victim to perpetrator, which leads to just as many insane men.

[Thetruth1400]

Hopefully, the "women survivors of sexual violence" who are also outright liars about it will indeed stop coming forward.

It'd make the world a better place for everyone involved.

Agreed. In this case, they said there were inconsistencies between the three to the point that it was almost plain to see that they were conspiring to get this guy in trouble.

Frankly, innocent until proven guilty needs to still be a thing, and they weren't able to prove he did anything wrong here, so the ruling is just.

It's really is getting to the point that you need to hit up a police station, get a breathalyzer done to prove you're both able to legally consent, then have an officer follow you home and making sure to ask, "Are you both willing participants in this?" before you actually start. Then they've got to sit there and watch just in case mid way through one of you changes your mind and decides to stop, then the officer can make sure both parties stop and sexy time is then over.

A bad decision doesn't make it rape, and honestly, if it is rape there needs to be some kind of evidence that it actually was, not just "Oh, I made a mistake and now I'm going to ruin someone's life over it."

[Deleted]

I haven't read his exact words, but isn't this actually the right thing to do? When several stories just don't add up to a believable whole, it shouldn't be regarded as "the truth"?

Not if you hate men and just want innocent men jailed, like feminists do.