@oj33 said in #120:
> I find it amusing that you call these decisions arbitrary. It is not arbitrary to bar someone credibly accused of sex crimes
It's arbitrary to trust someone word, what's not clear about that?
Is there any probable fact beyond words at this point? If the answer is yes why the guy is still fre (credible accusations of this severity usually led to preemptive jail in the pretrial phase)
If the answer is no as I understand, then it's arbitrary my friend.
If only I have one cent for each time I see people falsely accused because of their ethnicity..
Fortunately in my country accusations doesn't make a big difference in citizen life, until proven (or evaluated credible by a judge).
Ps: before I get misunderstood I would be clear, I have extreme respect and solidarity for any victim of such abhorrent crime.
It's take a lot of courage to expose such kind of fact, and I wouldn't certainly belittle those people courage.
What I am affirming here is that, even if solidarity to alleged victim is mandatory (even in advance), society must punish a subject only when there's proven fact.
Expelling people from group cause an allegations IMHO is too much and dangerous because put forward too much the punishment (only exception is if a judge find allegations credible).
So these guys in my social circle several of my women friends already complained about (hard stuff), you are saying until a judge and/or a formal police investigation happen, I should give them the benefit of the doubt and keep presenting them other of my women friends?
Studies indicate that there are on average several per social circle.
I think you guys wrote stuff before thinking it through. Or you want your friends to keep presenting you their women friends.
Also, at least one of you seem to be aware of structural inequalities "If only I have one cent for each time I see people falsely accused because of their ethnicity.."
Well, if only I had a cent each time a creep came running and shouting to defend sexual aggressors with arguments that have been debunked since feminist literature/studies exists...
@Ender88 said in #117:
> I am not a lawyer but AFAIK that the law (at least in my country).
> Otherwise a private entity may refuse to interact with some ethnic groups, or people with some religions.
> And about the allegations that should exclude automatically people, what about constant racist allegations made by racist people to others people of some specific ethnicity?
That would be against the law. Reactions by private entities are subject to the law of course, but they don't require a judge's permission to take place. People can act as they see fit within the confines of the law. There is no need for a special permission.
> Should we listen also that allegations? And if not who decides which allegations have to be enforced preemptively?
>
> Spoiler a judge..
I feel like you are mixing the requirement of a fairness of a process with the requirement of an involvement by a judge. These are really two entirely separate things. I agree with the first one, but not the second one. Some more examples of private entities reacting in a way that negatively affect an individual with no need for a judge:
If somebody tells you that person X has been lying, do you reserve your judgment until a judge has decided?
If a politician has been accused of bad behavior and you read an article outlining the situation according to the reporter, isn't his party entitled to doing an internal investigation and demanding his resignation depending on the result? Without a judge.
Associations can have bylaws that determine conditions when members can be excluded. They don't need the presence of a judge to apply them. Nor do these bylaws stop being applicable, just because an action has crossed the threshold of being a crime.
A store owner can throw people out, simply because the store is his private property. He can not do this arbitrarily and his actions are subject to law, but he doesn't need a judge.
A guest can be thrown out from a house at any time, there is no need for a judge. If that guest behaves criminally, there is no sudden obligation not to throw him out simply because now it is a criminal matter and a legal process begins.
There are consequences to allegations all the time without a need for a judge. That is not necessarily discriminating or the like.
> Because an allegation is not a fact they can't exclude people based on them, because allegations produce consequences only when proved.
You pretend like allegations are not a form of evidence themselves. People can even be convicted in court based on witness statements (i.e. allegations from a first person perspective). Even more so can private entities arrive at judgment calls based on witness statements (i.e. allegations). It's not as though witness statements are just some claims without evidentiary value. Sure, they can be false allegations. But if you find a weapon at a crime scene, that is still evidence in the case, even if the accused person is found to be innocent (the process would in that case show that there is no clear connection from the weapon to that person for example).
So accusatory statements (in the form of witness statements, such as when a woman accuses a man of abuse when they were alone with that person) are a valid form of evidence. That doesn't mean that they are always convincing or true, but they are evidence nevertheless. So if several people make claims, they carry a greater weight and that can lead to negative consequences for the accused person without it violating the fairness of proceedings. Whether the evidence is convincing is a different topic altogether from whether it is evidence.
It is of course possible that powerful people can frame somebody (coordinated false statements), but it's equally possible that powerful people pressure witnesses or can afford lawyers to win cases they should lose or draw them out until the other side runs out of money. This process can be abused by powerful people too as you rightly point out, but that is true of any process. There is no process that is entirely foolproof against abuse. None. So the theoretical possibility of abuse does not prove that a process is flawed (or more flawed than others).
To me it seems you're arguing that once a legal proceeding is happening you get additional protection against repercussions outside of the legal process. That's just not true, it's not how life works. You do get additional protections against the forces in the legal process (police, prosecutor, judge, jury), but not against anybody else.
So for somebody accused in a legal proceeding, there is no special protection against what third parties do.
The accused individual is as protected or unprotected as they were before. Nobody is allowed to slander that person or discriminate against them or physically harm them any more than they were before the allegations. But they are allowed to come to conclusions and make decisions that negatively affect the individual without any input or permission by a judge. They don't need to ignore the allegations until the end of a trial.
Credible abuse allegations can have severe negative consequences outside of a court of law, which is not in itself a problem.
@TurtleMat said in #123:
> Well, if only I had a cent each time a creep came running and shouting to defend sexual aggressors with arguments that have been debunked since feminist literature/studies exists...
Let me correct you pitchfork mentality blatantly displayed to everyone:
We are talking about an "alleged sexual aggresor"
But now it's pretty clear that to you it's already culprit, or there is some verdict I have missed?
@svensp said in #124:
>People can act as they see fit within the confines of the law. There is no need for a special permission.
>
For the millionth time, people can act as they fit : yes
Club? Not so much
@svensp said in #124:
> I feel like you are mixing the requirement of a fairness of a process with the requirement of an involvement by a judge. [..]
> If somebody tells you that person X has been lying, do you reserve your judgment until a judge has decided?
>
I have answered already exactly this question you already written to me before..why are you repeating?
@svensp said in #124:
> If a politician has been accused of bad behavior and you read an article outlining the situation according to the reporter, isn't his party entitled to doing an internal investigation and demanding his resignation depending on the result? Without a judge.
In my country usually politics stay in charge even if accused of the worst crime, till found guilty yes.
In my country reporter do not make allegations but report fact or testimony from someone else.
@svensp said in #124:
> Associations can have bylaws that determine conditions when members can be excluded. They don't need the presence of a judge to apply them. Nor do these bylaws stop being applicable, just because an action has crossed the threshold of being a crime.
>
True, as I said plenty of time they have statute, that applies to everyone in the club and the (legally speaking) can refuse or exclude someone only if he doesn't meet the statue and if the statute itself is legal.
I don't have evidence that any of the involved parties have statutes that exclude people with allegations.
@svensp said in #124:
> A store owner can throw people out, simply because the store is his private property.
Absolutely not, not in my country at least, not in France AFAIK (even if not my country)
A store is considered public place, and rejecting a potential customer is illegal
@svensp said in #124:
> A guest can be thrown out from a house at any time, there is no need for a judge. If that guest behaves criminally, there is no sudden obligation not to throw him out simply because now it is a criminal matter and a legal process begins.
>
Please please, stop
Stop confusing what a person privately choose to do with his freedom for whatever reason, and what a club can or can't do.
A club especially no profit should abide to a plenty of law..
@svensp said in #124:
> There are consequences to allegations all the time without a need for a judge. That is not necessarily discriminating or the like.
>
And you agree with that?
Probably you never face any discrimination yourself, would be funny if someone accuse you of the worst only because dislike you or your ideology/religion/ethnicity
@svensp said in #124:
> You pretend like allegations are not a form of evidence themselves.
Pitchfork mentality at his best.. crazy world
Witnesses != allegations
@svensp said in #124:
> People can even be convicted in court based on witness statements (i.e. allegations from a first person perspective).
You contradict yourself again, an allegation with many witnesses, is an allegation backed with proofs.
And as you said conviction is a choice of a judge.. people are not convicted by a chess club.
So basically as you say yes, sometimes allegations with evidence led to jail time even in the pre trial phase..as I have already try to explain to you, this is how systems works.
@svensp said in #124:
> So accusatory statements (in the form of witness statements, such as when a woman accuses a man of abuse when they were alone with that person) are a valid form of evidence.
>
Can you bake any evidence of your claim about the fact that accusation is per se an evidence?
I mean maybe in Afghanistan, but exactly in which legal framework you think this is true?
Please provide some details..
@svensp said in #124:
> The accused individual is as protected or unprotected as they were before. Nobody is allowed to slander that person or discriminate against them or physically harm them any more than they were before the allegations. But they are allowed to [..] make decisions that negatively affect the individual without any input or permission [..]
>
Ok now I see you are just trolling
Sorry I take you seriously, but after you contradict blatantly saying that is correct to make decisions that "negatively affect and individual without any input of permission" it clear :')
Ps: i really and deeply dislike this idiotic thinking, that somehow other people have the right (just based on their feelings and beliefs) to "negatively affect an individual without a permission"...
An euphemism to say that basically is ok to hurt (maybe not physically) people that is not liked.
SIMPLY CRAZY
@Ender88 said in #125:
> But now it's pretty clear that to you it's already culprit, or there is some verdict I have missed?
I was referring to the innumerable (and yet still estimated at around 10 percent of reported cases, who knows about actual cases) cases that already went to court, and where it was easy to interpret fact in retrospect. which gives indication about ratio of false accusations, and reeeeeaaaly interesting insights in hindsight on how these discussions work.
By know it's pretty clear that you have no idea of the context of the discussion you are trying to have, both generally speaking and about this particular case.
Also, you are doing quite some work to (consciously or not) maintain a system that produces these cases in masses. If you actually don't want that, I invite you to read some literature on how to better avoid that.
@Ender88 said in #125:
> Let me correct you pitchfork mentality blatantly displayed to everyone:
> We are talking about an "alleged sexual aggresor"
Ok, let me rephrase :
Well, if only I had a cent each time a creep came running and shouting to defend alleged sexual aggressors with arguments that have been debunked since feminist literature/studies exists...
...I could give 100 dollars for each time the alleged aggressor was actually innocent and still get rich.
@TurtleMat said in #127:
> I was referring to the innumerable (and yet still estimated at around 10 percent of reported cases, who knows about actual cases) cases that already went to court, and where it was easy to interpret fact in retrospect. which gives indication about ratio of false accusations, and reeeeeaaaly interesting insights in hindsight on how these discussions work.
>
> By know it's pretty clear that you have no idea of the context of the discussion you are trying to have, both generally speaking and about this particular case.
>
> Also, you are doing quite some work to (consciously or not) maintain a system that produces these cases in masses. If you actually don't want that, I invite you to read some literature on how to better avoid that.
I am not sure of what you said.
If the person is dangerous, or there is risk of repetition of the offending, it will be jailed immediately by a judge, if not is not dangerous in the eyes of law.
What is dangerous 100% is use statistics to justify preemptive justice, before trial.
Ps: I am defending no person in particular, I am only explaining why your beliefs, and that pitchfork mentality have led to power abuse in the past
@Ender88 said in #129:
> If the person is dangerous, or there is risk of repetition of the offending, it will be jailed immediately by a judge,
This is how I know without the slightest doubt that you don't know what you are talking about.
> What is dangerous 100% is use statistics to justify preemptive justice, before trial.
As everyone tries to tell you, it is not a matter of rendering justice, but private entities drawing the conclusion they do with the information they have, and then acting accordingly, in the frame of the law.
But it is quite reasonable to use statistics to decide how likely a thing is, and (SINCE NEITHER I NOR LICHESS ARE CURRENTLY RULING ON THIS CASE) to make a temporary judgment until more evidence is presented.
> I am only explaining why your beliefs, and pitchfork mentality have led to power abuse in the past
You talk about power dynamics, yet you are the one with the discourse that leads to abuse in the present.
Again, i invite you to inform yourself about this subject in more depth.
You might think you are making a clever point about due process, but it is not what you are doing. Instead, you are nitpicking on a irrelevant point (again, since this is not a court, and that standard of evidence for court have a reason to be reeeealy strict that is not practicable for any other field) and disturbing a space that tries to explain and inform with arguments that, again, are long known and debunked (which you would know if you knew what you are talking about).
@TurtleMat said in #130:
> You talk about power dynamics, yet you are the one with the discourse that leads to abuse in the present.
A bold claim, and quite vile thing to say to someone, just because I have a different opinion..
@TurtleMat said in #130:
> Again, i invite you to inform yourself about this subject in more depth.
>
:) thanks I really appreciate, try do the same also you
@TurtleMat said in #130:
> You might think you are making a clever point about due process, but it is not what you are doing. Instead, you are nitpicking on a irrelevant point
Ohh you seem to know me very well, my motive my story and why I am talking here so passionately.
Let me explain better about my motivation.
I have literally no interest if you find me or my reasoning clever or dumb.
I only hope that the very dangerous thinking you are promoting is exposed for what it's, a dangerous idea.
I think that what happened in this case (the one leading to boycott) is very serious, and maybe more serious standard should be considered for avoid that something similar happen again.
But that doesn't mean that a private entity should try to police handle alone the situation as you suggest.
This is dangerous because it may led to abuse of power, it's dangerous because will lack of standardisation among different club and private entities (that will act in a disorganized manner).
Take what happened here, many different private entities have different standards and cannot agree on which is the best policy to avoid further victims in the future.
It's seems that this is an effective way to proceed?
Or you believe that a more organic and standardized response should be preferable?
I prefer the latter, a standard response, preferably grounded in the legal system.
Prevent abuse of power, guarantee standardisation at the same time.
Ah and if you would like to provide any sources that disprove my reasoning I am glad to listen.
If you would like to continue attacking my reasoning with assertive claims about some vile consequences.. without explaining the logical connection, feel free to argue with yourself