|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i saw people defend oskar dirlewanger because he was fighting the "reds" and those girls "were probaly whores anyway" look up oskar dirlewanger if you want to feel like poo poo for a week. that ghouel was so hosed up he was booted from the SS. so i can believe dumbshits love sundowner. The Dirlewanger Battalion is basically proof of 'No, you cannot exaggerate how hosed up the Nazis were. Whatever you think you made up, they probably did it and it was messed up.'
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i saw people defend oskar dirlewanger because he was fighting the "reds" and those girls "were probaly whores anyway" Including the babies? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Nate Parker was acquitted, his co-defendant had a hung jury and never got a retrial.But, if you've already made up your mind that Nate Parker is a rapist http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/16/inside-the-nate-parker-rape-case.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
pookel posted:Just speculation here, but women don't usually kill themselves over having bad drunken sex that they later regretted. 11 years after the fact? Parker was acquitted of any wrongdoing. If that isn't good enough for you, to be tried in a court of law and found not guilty, then the accusation of wrongdoing is actually as bad as the crime itself. I mean, jeez, what do you want  .
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:If that isn't good enough for you, to be tried in a court of law and found not guilty, then the accusation of wrongdoing is actually as bad as the crime itself. This doesn't actually follow.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:11 years after the fact? OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were both found not guilty so they must be innocent right
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Hrm, lemme rephrase that: Parker was found not guilty. If it's not enough to be found not guilty in a court, then just being accused of a crime is enough to consider someone guilty of it. Parker was found innocent of a crime that he was accused, but the media dragging it up is enough to try and convict Parker in the court of public opinion. eg,  "Parke was accussed of raping a chick back in 1999, so I'm not going to see his movie" "But he was found not guilty" "So?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
GIANT OUIJA BOARD posted:OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson were both found not guilty so they must be innocent right Well OJ was innocent of murder, not covering up the murder committed by his son, but innocent of the murder itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Parker was found not guilty. If it's not enough to be found not guilty in a court, then just being accused of a crime is enough to consider someone guilty of it. This still doesn't follow. "Trust the criminal justice system absolutely in all cases" and "Believe any accusation" are not the only options.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:This still doesn't follow. "Trust the criminal justice system absolutely in all cases" and "Believe any accusation" are not the only options. I'm not arguing that those are the only options. My response was to Pooke. If being found innocent of a pretty terrible thing in a court of law isn't enough to convince you, then what is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:I'm not arguing that those are the only options. Like most people, I make judgments based on available information and my judgment of the plausibility of the accusation, not on the opinion of the jury. Most people do this with most crimes - except rape, for some reason, when they suddenly start assuming that women are hysterical liars who would choose to undergo rape examinations and months or years of being a trial witness just because they wish they hadn't had sex.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:I'm not arguing that those are the only options. No, your argument just implicitly requires that this be the case to be valid. If there are any other than those two options, then it is not the case that, lacking faith in the judicial process, we must believe any accusation as definitive proof. quote:My response was to Pooke. If being found innocent of a pretty terrible thing in a court of law isn't enough to convince you, then what is? And if you look at the post you were supposedly responding to, you will see another option than those two in action, "independent reasoning about the facts of the case." This implicitly answers your question (which you haven't actually asked until now) with, "a more convincing argument in his favor from the facts of the case."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
GunnerJ posted:And if you look at the post you were supposedly responding to, you will see another option than those two in action, "independent reasoning about the facts of the case." This implicitly answers your question (which you haven't actually asked until now) with, "a more convincing argument in his favor from the facts of the case." The account of the trial I read is pretty damning. Basically he got acquitted because she consented to have sex with him on other occasions. (Seen elsewhere in a comments section: "who knew consent was like an Amazon Prime 48-hour pass?")
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Parallel Paraplegic posted:Not really "dedicated" but the webcomics thread talks about them enough that whoever draws them included references to the webcomics thread in some of them The author also posts in the thread semi-regularly. Or at least did. Despite loving the BSS mock threads it's kind gone downhill in recent times so I've stopped following it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
pookel posted:Yup. so basically he got off like every other college rapists gets off. bullshit technicalities. gently caress him if its all true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:If being found innocent of a pretty terrible thing in a court of law isn't enough to convince you, then what is? Oh hi George Zimmerman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
pookel posted:In a country where it's practically impossible to convict someone of rape even when there's video evidence, you think a "not guilty" verdict is somehow proof of innocence? Really? in a country where being accussed of a sexual assault is enough to destroy your reputation forever, yes, actually, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is tremendously important. I remember the furor around the Duke case, and many,many,many people were internet-arguing that these guys deserved punishment from a case that ultimately turned out to be BS. GunnerJ posted:No, your argument just implicitly requires that this be the case to be valid. If there are any other than those two options, then it is not the case that, lacking faith in the judicial process, we must believe any accusation as definitive proof. My point was that internet arm chair analysis has nothing on the effort of the prosecution. Those people spent hundreds of collective man hours pouring over material related to the case, in far more detail than any one who posts in this thread ever will, and yet failed to convince 12 people of those 'facts of the case'. I'm not saying you have to accept that that happened. But what I am saying is that if a prosecutor failed to convince 12 people of the exact same thing, then why is your (or rather Pooke's) analysis so much better than their own?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
I am so sorry I inadvertently caused this
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:in a country where being accussed of a sexual assault is enough to destroy your reputation forever, yes, actually, the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is tremendously important. I remember the furor around the Duke case, and many,many,many people were internet-arguing that these guys deserved punishment from a case that ultimately turned out to be BS. To be fair, the prosecutor has to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof necessary to be uncomfortable with seeing a movie someone made is rather lower. "He probably did it" and "he should have been convicted" are two different things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I am so sorry I inadvertently caused this Not your fault. I stupidly brought it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
This is now the Rape Culture/Electronic Old Men thread. Mods change the title.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Gosh, who could have guessed that the Duke lacrosse case would get brought up. The real tragedy here isn't the thousands of rapists who get off scot-free, it's that one time some guys were wrongfully accused! This seems like an odd thread to post in for someone who's convinced that accused rapists are the real victims of our justice system, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
pookel posted:Gosh, who could have guessed that the Duke lacrosse case would get brought up. The real tragedy here isn't the thousands of rapists who get off scot-free, it's that one time some guys were wrongfully accused! It's possible to be real victims without being the real victims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh hi George Zimmerman. It shocks me how many people don't understand the important distinction between "innocent" and "not guilty".
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Oh good I look away for like an hour and come back to forums poster A White Guy dropping some mad truth bombs about men's rights and how date rape is basically The Crucible, cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:My point was that internet arm chair analysis has nothing on the effort of the prosecution. No, I don't think that was actually your point because you didn't bring up anything about the prosecution's efforts compared to anyone else's. That might have been one of your assumptions though. quote:I'm not saying you have to accept that that happened. But what I am saying is that if a prosecutor failed to convince 12 people of the exact same thing, then why is your (or rather Pooke's) analysis so much better than their own? Again, this seems a lot more like a revised and "evolved" argument made under the pressure of your actual argument getting picked apart than your "real point." Previously, you literally made the assertion that if someone is not convinced by the findings of a court of law, then clearly an accusation is sufficient to establish guilt to them. This does not immediately suggest "you don't have to accept the court's findings." Actually it suggests just the opposite. If you were saying anything like this previously then a different conversation would probably be happening, one about a more interesting issue. One possible (and honestly obvious if you give it a few seconds of thought) partial answer, by the way, is that these 12 people were not amenable to being persuaded by the facts due to various prejudices. This is a possibility that is basically thrumming through the subtext of every single post on this subject, so maybe you should turn your attention to that rather than more of this dumb flailing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
pookel posted:Gosh, who could have guessed that the Duke lacrosse case would get brought up. The real tragedy here isn't the thousands of rapists who get off scot-free, it's that one time some guys were wrongfully accused! Parallel Paraplegic posted:Oh good I look away for like an hour and come back to forums poster A White Guy dropping some mad truth bombs about men's rights and how date rape is basically The Crucible, cool Oh good lord. Now I support rape culture and men's right for daring to believe that maybe a thing that was supposed to happen, might not have happened. I guess I had better subscribe to Sargon or god forbid, Aurini and start regurgitating sexist/racist things verbatim onto my friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
A White Guy posted:Oh good lord. Now I support rape culture and men's right for daring to believe that maybe a thing that was supposed to happen, might not have happened. I guess I had better subscribe to Sargon or god forbid, Aurini and start regurgitating sexist/racist things verbatim onto my friends. To be fair I was just exaggerating for comedic effect but I think you might want to at least consider why you seem more concerned with false rape accusations, which are pretty rare, vs. underreporting and societal bias against rape victims, which is super common. Not saying you are, but you're sure coming off that way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
To be fair, dude, you did bring up the Duke lacrosse case. For all that an injustice was committed there, using it as an argument is almost always the equivalent of "I'm not a misogynist, BUT..."
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
I thought the other thing with the DE:HR situation was that augmentations sort of became a go-to medical care thing. Like if you were having kidney trouble you'd just have cyberkidneys put in. Someone with a really bad arm break might prefer to replace it rather than rehabilitate the original tissue. That kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I thought the other thing with the DE:HR situation was that augmentations sort of became a go-to medical care thing. Like if you were having kidney trouble you'd just have cyberkidneys put in. Someone with a really bad arm break might prefer to replace it rather than rehabilitate the original tissue. That kind of thing. that too. that and i dont think the augmentations themselves were that expensive. it was the insurance and the anti-rejection drug.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:that too. that and i dont think the augmentations themselves were that expensive. it was the insurance and the anti-rejection drug. If I remember right there was also an enormous disparity in quality between the quality of augmetics the rich and poor had available to them, with poor quality ones often being an active detriment to your quality of life in many ways.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:I am so sorry I inadvertently caused this *nods*
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:To be fair, the prosecutor has to convince 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard of proof necessary to be uncomfortable with seeing a movie someone made is rather lower. Hence the need for a "not proven" verdict in all countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If I remember right there was also an enormous disparity in quality between the quality of augmetics the rich and poor had available to them, with poor quality ones often being an active detriment to your quality of life in many ways. Human Revolution sorta muddled the waters by making several good looking sleek cybernetics while the original Deus Ex set further in the future had basically all the cyborgs look like industrial equipment strapped to human bodies. It also had most of the cyborgs turning to crime because they had been obsoleted by the introduction of nano-technology augments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I know it'd be a novelty in this thread, but are any neoreactionaries or DE types up to anything worth posting about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:Well OJ was innocent of murder, not covering up the murder committed by his son, but innocent of the murder itself. wait what
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
divabot posted:I know it'd be a novelty in this thread, but are any neoreactionaries or DE types up to anything worth posting about? I decided to look over Jim's recent blog posts. Most of it is sort of repetitively vile, but this one amused me. Jim posted:About a year ago, I produced thirty liters of moonshine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I decided to look over Jim's recent blog posts. Most of it is sort of repetitively vile, but this one amused me. Home brewing is awesome. We have an instructional blog on the topic. We're perfecting the art of drinkable 20% mead using yeast intended for insane Scandinavians to make vodka starter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:wait what Theory that OJ's son was the real killer
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2016 02:21
|
|
