Judges Rule Raped Woman Can Sue 'Enabling' Web Site (vice.com)

Web sites that matched models to photographers also led dozens of women to a pair of rapists in 2011, according to Vice. "Civil court documents show that the owners of Model Mayhem knew about the first wave of rapes but failed to issue a warning to users," Vice reported last summer. Facebook, Craigslist, and Tumblr filed briefs in support of the "Model Mayhem" site, arguing that allowing women to sue them could create a new "failure to warn" liability for other web sites. But now AmiMoJo writes:In a decision that one day could have reverberations across the internet, a three-judge panel in California decided she can sue the Model Mayhem site that the pair used to lure their victims. "Congress has not provided an all purpose get-out-of-jail-free card for businesses that publish user content on the Internet," Judge Richard Clifton wrote in the panel's decision. The CDA traditionally exempts web sites from liability for anything their users post. Do Slashdot readers think there should ever be any exceptions?

Comments

Did they know who the culprits were?

[drinkypoo]

If they had specific knowledge that crimes had been committed, and who committed them, then they may have been aiding the criminal activity. If someone had suggested to them that something like that might have been going on, but gave no specifics whatsoever, then not so much. Either way, a court and probably a jury will have to decide.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[DRJlaw]

If they had specific knowledge that crimes had been committed, and who committed them, then they may have been aiding the criminal activity. If someone had suggested to them that something like that might have been going on, but gave no specifics whatsoever, then not so much.

No. That is not the standard. This is:

DUTY OF CARE OF PROPRIETOR OF BUSINESS
The proprietor of a business establishment owes a duty of care to customers when they come upon the business premises at the proprietor's express or implied invitation. This duty of care requires the proprietor to exercise reasonable care to discover whether accidental, negligent or intentionally harmful acts of third persons are occurring or are likely to occur on the business premises. If a proprietor knows, or should know that such acts are occurring or are likely to occur, the proprietor has the further duty to either give the customer a warning adequate to enable the visitor to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect the visitor against such harm.

This has nothing to do with aiding the criminal activity. This has very little to do with whether they had specific knowledge of crimes. This has to do with whether they invested reasonable effort into determining whether a risk was likely to be present, and warned their customers of the risk. If someone suggest that something like that might have been going on, then for various values of might (with a threshold between more likely than not and lottery odds), they very well could be liable.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...on the business premises..."

Your argument is DOA but good luck with it all the same ;)

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

How could they have specific knowledge that crimes had been committed and who committed them, when prosecutors dropped most of the charges and these people were out on bail?
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. The website is not responsible for determining that crimes were committed, full stop.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[o_ferguson]

We didn't prosecute Hitler. He killed himself.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[jcr]

The greasy little scumbag took the coward's way out. "Master race", my ass.

-jcr

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist". The damage this does to actual victims of rape is hard to quantify and tragic in and of itself.

Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do, but you have to research the topic to find this out. It won't appear on the evening news. The narrative is that men are the nasty brutish aggressors and women are the innocent victims. The truth is that both sexes are capable of criminal behavior because both are equally human. One is just a lot less likely to be believed, the other less likely to be prosecuted.

Likewise, a man who tried to report being assaulted by his wife/partner tends to be viewed as less masculine, attaching a stigma to it. The reality is that a woman who physically abuses her husband won't be instantly arrested and charged on his word alone (like a man would). The abusive woman can be confident that he probably won't defend himself with his superior strength because if he did that, then HE would go to jail. This isn't the only example of double standards in the system - just try finding a woman who has to pay alimony to a man. They do exist but they're almost unheard-of. Actual equality and accountability under the law would be a positive change.

If you thought the news was some kind of seeker of truth that always tells the whole story you are sorely mistaken. Just like when a legal gunowner uses a gun to stop a crime (usually just by drawing it and not having to fire), the news report says something like "the suspect was subdued until police arrive". Because guns doing good does not fit the desired narrative, not because it doesn't happen. Yet when some nut goes crazy and shoots an innocent victim the details are fully presented. This is not a coincidence. This is because it comes from a set of beliefs, a set of desired outcomes.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

The website will be argued to be the premises since that is where transactions take place. There may already be precedent, I don't know.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[CanadianMacFan]

And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims. I'm not saying that in this case the claims were false or not because I didn't read the article but it would be easy for a model who had a disagreement with a photographer to bring up a false charge to the site in order to hurt the photographers business.

There is something that used to matter and that is the presumption of innocence.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a guy who was raped by a teenage girl. Didn't report it. And no I didn't want it, like almost everyone presumes.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Marful]

And wouldn't they have the same duty of care to protect their clients from false claims.

I would argue yes. However, to determine the credulity of the allegations would require some form of due diligence in looking into said claims.

Did Model Mayhem do such? I don't know, but that to me is the question that potentially opens up Model Mayhem to liability.

If they did no such due diligence, then regardless of which position you take, they failed in their duty.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[iCEBaLM]

A website isn't a premises. When I browse a website, I am not literally going to the destinations location. This law means the proprietor of a business has a duty of care to people visiting a physical location he owns and controls.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm a guy who was raped by a teenage girl.

The prosecution rests.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Noah Haders]

> It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist".

This sounds like a Trump-style "fact". "this thing that supports my conservative agenda is true, and I can prove it by stating that there's no proof because the scumbag liberal media covers it up." Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

I love this place. </s>

Does anyone remember the days when the comment threads for SlashDot used to actually contain highly relevant and thoughtful discussion?

We've always had idiot trolls like Doctor Dumbass, here, but they tended to be a tiny minority.

I used to check SlashDot first thing every day. Now, I check once a week, and often find "new" news stories that have been out in the Gawker sites for a week.

I almost never read the comments anymore. This comment is a pretty classic example of some of the more "cerebral" comments to be found. (maybe a "breakfast cerebral", like Captain Crud?)

Gone are the days when I could actually learn about new technologies from actual scientists and engineers with far greater knowledge than I.

Nowadays, I need to quaff half a pint of shoe polish, just to get in a frame of mind where I can actually understand this drivel.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[DRJlaw]

This law means the proprietor of a business has a duty of care to people visiting a physical location he owns and controls.

The standard is not a statute. The standard comes from English (and then American) common law. A key aspect of the common law is that it evolves and adapts, frequently making use of analogies to prior circumstances to determine whether there are, for example, duties of care in new circumstances.

If you think that the word "premesis" in a half page summary of a common law concept going to be enough to completely shield this business from liability (i.e., a jury will not be permitted to decide whether there is a special relationship and duty to warn), then you either failed the first year of law school or never attempted to attend.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[o_ferguson]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CD...

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

And no harmful acts occurred on the website.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then it should be trivial for you to cite a case where this redefinition of premises was accepted right? The web has been around for quite some time now after all.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[bugnuts]

Does anyone remember the days when the comment threads for SlashDot used to actually contain highly relevant and thoughtful discussion?

5-digit uid checking in. But neither statement above provided any evidence, and the OP being an AC, less credibility.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. It's an actual fact. And there's plenty of proof:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape+conv...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's what he's talking about:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rape+conv...

And those are just false claims that led to convictions that were overturned by one specific kind of evidence. It doesn't cover false claims that never led to a conviction, false claims that led to a conviction that were overturned by other kinds of evidence, or false claims that have led to convictions that have not been overturned.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Mal-2]

You can't be raped on a website. The only responsibility would be a warning that anyone you meet online might not be who they represent themselves to be, and that meeting them in person must take place at your own risk. This could be buried in the terms and conditions, because the users all confirmed that they read them cover to cover when they signed on -- although nobody did, of course.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's relevant and thoughtful discussion, not scientific papers being sent in for grading, requiring bibliography and source-quoting.

Nearly every time I see someone demanding sources, it's because they're whining and pouting due to not being able to counter. Inevitably, when a source is provided, they will simply claim the source is biased or is not to be trusted. The vast majority of the time, when I see someone demanding sources, I just consider them the a sore loser and move on to the next comment.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical. Someone doesn't like the data or the facts, so it's time to "change the guidelines" so that it lines up with the agenda.

If actions like this don't immediately give you cause to question the honesty of government number reporting (spoiler: these days it is frequently just outright lies), you're probably a lost cause.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyer here. Doesn't matter. The website is the agent of the model and therefore owes a fiduciary duty to the principal(the model) to not place itself in a position where its interests conflict with those of the principal.

Here they placed their interest in making money ahead of the models' interests in not being raped. Since they had notice that there was a reasonable likelihood that their models were being raped, then by proceeding to accept models' money while not warning them, they were in clear violation of this duty.

That's just the agency law theory. There are plenty of other negligence theories applicable here as well, including plain vanilla negligence that need not even implicate the enhanced duties of care presented in business and agency relationships.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your stupid UID dipshit, it's the content of the comments that counts ONLY. Anything else is just cliquey bullshit for retards like you to feel special about themselves because of how meaningless their lives are.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[jcr]

Ooh, I like that.

-jcr

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.forensicsciencetechnician.net/25-wrongly-convicted-felons-exonerated-by-new-forensic-evidence/

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol. That rape document describes 80% of all sexual college encounters. Probably about 100% of my one night stand encounters. And in all, I'm the rapee and the rapist at the same time ?

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Calydor]

Facists.

Really? REALLY?

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

But is it reasonable to expect them to issue the warning?

From the description of the problem and their business, it sounds like on the off chance that some sick person decides to research, find and attack other users, which is an ever present danger in absolutely every service that provides social interaction between users, they would have to essentially shut down their service.

I'm not entirely sure that would be a reasonable effort to make, and requiring that is a dangerous precedent. It's essentially criminalizing not being overprotective of internet customers, in fact in a far greater extent than the protection required for real, physically present customers. I mean, eating McDonalds every day will literally kill you, but you don't see courts requiring McDonnalds to issue a warning: "Eating this more often that not will kill you. Do you want fries with that?".

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think.

This. I've had 3 women accuse me of rape, and one accuse me of sexual harassment, in my lifetime. Two of the rape accusations came from women I never even touched (one of whom I'd never met in person) and the other from a woman who made the claim after her boyfriend (who i didn't know about) found out about us; I had video of the supposed incident, including her turning on the camera. Luckily for me, all of those were dropped quickly without police involvement when I pointed out the evidence I had that they were all lying.

I didn't get so lucky with the harassment accusation, which happened back in high school, though. I was called into the office, shown the list of things she claimed I had said to her and admitted that all of those things had been said... by her, not by me. I was suspended pending investigation and possible expulsion and criminal prosecution; thankfully, the police insisted on written statements from students she claimed would have heard the things on the list being said. Most of the people she named as witnesses were her friends, many of which were none too fond of me, so I was a bit worried about the outcome; in the end, though, every single one of them told the truth and she ended up getting expelled. Sad, really, since her and I were (or, so I thought) friends until I turned her down when she asked me to a school dance, as I already had a date.

Then, there was the girl I dated who drugged and raped me. I would have been more than willing but, apparently, it was a fetish of hers. Of course, being male, it didn't matter that I tried to report it. The police simply told me that, next time, I should avoid the drugs. Well, no shit! I didn't put them in my own drink.

Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do

I'm not entirely sure how true that is, but here's an anecdote to back it up.

A girl I dated in the early 00's was the abusive type. She was sweet and caring until she convinced me to move in with her, then the games began. Fortunately, I'm capable of defending myself and know better than to fight back. I could tell you some stories about this one, but I'll fast-forward to the meaty bits. What got me to leave her was when she came at me with a knife; I got the knife away from her and was walking back to the kitchen to put it away when she reached around me and grabbed the blade. She cut two fingers down to the bone and said something along the lines of "if I'm not getting you, the police will". I'm so thankful for attentive neighbors who met the police outside and informed them of what actually went down before they got to my door after she called them (after I drove her to the ER, if course). They came in and asked if I was alright, I told them I was, then they asked if I wanted to press charges. I declined, but did ask that they file a detailed incident report as I would be moving out and filing for a restraining order, ex parte. Of course, my request for a restraining order was denied by two different judges (I appealed the first); the second even went so far as to say that, since I'm a man, I should be able to defend myself without giving my ex a criminal background.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to check your privilege.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[penguinoid]

What about all the false murder reports? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=murder+conv...

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[iCEBaLM]

The law you site was made to make sure that business owners put up warnings to unsuspecting customers if they have people doing potentially harmful work in their buildings, like renovators/construction, etc. This doesn't translate to a website. It's not reasonable to think that a certain person is going to commit rape, especially if you've never met them. It doesn't pass the foreseeability test, let alone the multi-factor test. Does eHarmony or PlentyOfFish have the same duty of care? Are we going to require all websites that try to match people up to perform background checks on every one of its members?

You're severely reaching with this

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[guises]

According to the FBI, false claims of rape are 8% of the total. You can decide whether that qualifies as "tiny".

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

This.

Not really. It sounds like you've been monumentally unlucky. However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people and aggregating those measurements. If you picked Roy Cleveland Sullivan, you might come to the conclusion that people get hit by lightning an awful lot.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[misexistentialist]

Look into the public records of the cases yourself then, the majority are simply invalid (don't meet the definition of rape, are unprovable, presume the defendant guilty). Wouldn't say this is covered up, the general position is that it's OK for innocent men to go to jail if it makes women feel better

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[OpenSourced]

I don't know. Are the owners of derelict buildings where drug selling and other crimes are openly conducted ever liable for that?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course facists. I don't show mine in public because of them

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[james_gnz]

Nearly every time I see someone demanding sources, it's because they're whining and pouting due to not being able to counter.

I do know that it's a pain being asked for sources. I often can't remember where I read stuff. On the other hand though, I can't automatically accept every claim made by someone I don't know who doesn't provide a source. If I did, I'd have to accept a lot of contradictory claims.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite not site.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

of course we do, youngster. Nobody gives a shit about a AC opinion.

Irony: Posting this as AC.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Less than 100%, so you know if only one bad man escapes the consequences ...

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[drinkypoo]

I don't know. Are the owners of derelict buildings where drug selling and other crimes are openly conducted ever liable for that?

If they can be shown to know about it beforehand, yes. Then they're aiding and abetting criminal activity, and property used in the commission of a crime can be seized, and that explicitly applies to land in the case of drug busts. That's why the states generally want people to get permission from their landlords before e.g. they do a grow; then they can seize the property.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported.

This is a subtle, but significant, misrepresentation of the facts. Rape reports that are identified in studies as false are a small percentage (2-90% across many studies, but with a median around only 10-15%). But rape reports that are identified in courts as true are also a small percentage (~5%). Between that, we don't know. We might split them proportionally, and say that ~70% of rape reports are false, but this is a pretty wild guess. I'd expect that courts might have a higher standard for truth than studies do for falsehood, which would revise this number downward.

Note that these are for rape accusations made to the police. I'd guess that false accusations would have a lower chance of being taken to the police (because the penalties for falsehood at that point are more severe), so the falsehood rate in accusations that aren't brought to the police might be higher than this.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heck, they were warned. Know what mayhem means?

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[JenovaSynthesis]

Exactly. As sickening as those two freaks are, in the absence of a conviction or any other kind of legally binding decision (e.g. a civil suit), for all Model Mayhem knew they were just allegations.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[onepoint]

Because you are talking as an AC, the value of your statement is worthless. place your name and brand so your statements can have a weight.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Megol]

Committing suicide isn't "coward's way out". His plans was (thankfully) ruined and there were nothing more to do. Why then expose himself to the victors law and simultaneously legitimate the rule of his enemy? He considered himself the military commander and they were (and still are in some places) expected to commit suicide rather than give themselves up to the enemy. Hitler expected that from field marshal Paulus, considered Paulus choice of surrendering cowardice - if he then didn't do it himself that would be the way of a coward!

TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler only had one, you know...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

According to a medical examiner who now spends a lot of time visting schools to try to deal with the problem early a lot of those 8% were injured in the course of the rape so where clearly raped by someone but backed out of the legal process for various reasons, sometimes early enough to get in that 8%, sometimes after charges have been laid but before proscution. Society still paints a lot of rape victims as harlots who had it coming to them, especially in the more "conservative" states of the USA, so victims have been known to refuse to testify to avoid being publicly identified.
I probably should keep a log of newspaper articles I read and radio programs I listen to so that I could provide a name and link when browser history is not enough.

In short that figure doesn't describe a binary situation like it appears to. All it provides is a percentage of cases dropped and it shouldn't be interpreted as anything else.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Pay them money and they will give you a statement that will have weight. Otherwise treat them like any other subject matter expert on this site giving casual advice.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Cederic]

Ouch, you have had an interesting past. In the Chinese curse sense.

On my part,
- rapes: 0
- false accusations of rape: 0
- sexual assaults (perpetrated): 0
- false accusations of sexual assault: 1 (that I know of)
- sexual assaults received: 2 (or off the fucking scale if you include unwanted hugs, which apparently counts these days)

Of those 2 assaults, one was by a group of four males, fought off by myself and a kind passer-by. One was by a woman. She was drunk. I was sober. Her male friend actually gave me shit for physically resisting her unwanted advances.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - you've looked at all the cases, and come up with an actual statistical analysis? That's pretty damn impressive - I look forward to reading your published results.

More likely: you looked for cases which matched your agenda, and then convinced yourself of your conclusion.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

And lets not forget all the proof that the holocaust was a hoax.

You were simply trying to prove to the other AC that a lmgtfy link is not a valid citation, right?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck?

Check his what?

I have been attacked by two girlfriends. There is nothing I can do about it. Tell anyone any they say "man up".

If a man attacks a woman then he is charged.
IF A WOMAN ATTACKS A MAN HE GETS LAUGHED AT

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

5-digit uid checking in.

U have got to be shitting me.

I had a 5-digit ID once. I probably still do, but could be arsed to look for it. I used to be quite conscientious in doing my duty as a SlashDot member.

However, this place is now just a standard Web garbage dump.

Sad.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it sounds like a typical Liberal piece of shit desperately shoehorns partisan politics into the discussion instead of doing any work towards finding statistics for himself. Standard behavior.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Agripa]

If a man attacks a woman then he is charged.
IF A WOMAN ATTACKS A MAN HE GETS LAUGHED AT

And if a man defends himself against a woman, he is charged.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mousilini lead the fascists not Hitler, he lead the nazis

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Failing to meet the high threshold for a criminal conviction doesn't mean the complaint is false. If a murder prosecution fails does that mean the victim is still alive? That it was suicide? Natural causes?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I should have just linked to the Google results directly. I was being snarky with lmgtfy because bogus rape convictions being overturned has been in the press lot since DNA testing has become more common and used to double-check older convictions. And a couple of minutes on Google would have shown this to any of these clowns who claim that false claims of rape are not a thing.

And if there are false convictions to be overturned, damn straight there are false charges that didn't lead to a conviction, false accusations that didn't lead to charges, and so on.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported because it's generally done by women and pointing this out is an easy way to get branded "sexist". The damage this does to actual victims of rape is hard to quantify and tragic in and of itself.

There are a number of social science studies that do tend to support this.

For example, Eugene J. Kanin did a number of studies in the mid-Western USA in the late 1980's. He found a large percentage of false rape accusations by women (significantly higher than the various government agencies have reported, between 40-50% versus under 10%), with accusers that recanted admitting motivations of alibi or revenge.

Attempts have been made to attack those studies.

The usual way is this done is to claim that the studies were methodologically unsound and biased, following by a study that gives different results. Unfortunately, my examination of the studies making these claims shows that:
a) They haven't actually addressed the methodology in the original studies. To make an argument, you must attack assumptions or logic, and neither is being done, which makes the claims propaganda and/or marketing.
b) The countering studies are clearly methodologically unsound and biased. For instance, they "train" somebody to decide whether or not a rape has occurred based upon a police report, then measure actual rape based upon giving their trainees other police reports. The problems with this approach should be obvious...

In short, it appears that some special interest group or groups has been funding "studies" that support their agenda.

At the same time, some of the criticisms seem valid, and more work needs to be done in this area. It is absolutely the case that false accusations of rape are happening, but it isn't clear what the real percentage is. Equally true, some rapes don't get reported, for a whole host of reasons.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

So, the implication is that the above is a work of fiction? Thank you for illustrating the point I, and the post I was replying to, was trying to make.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Given that you've gotten it from both genders, can you clarify whatheryou are male or female? It will help tov highlight the point.

All of these things are bad. They're bad no matter who they happen to, and anyone who doesn't see that has some severe mental issues. I would never say thlse people deserve to share in these experiences but, were I the kind to suggest someone go and get raped, well, I'd suggest it to anyone who claims rape isn't serious, or that it can't happen to a man, or that a girl shouldn't dress a certain way, or anything else that undermines any victim. The latter because damn, I like looking at the girls that dress for attention; though I think most of us can agree they shouldn't dress that way and walk through certain parts of town alone after dark (though how she's dressed is likely to be the least significant factor at that point) simy out of caution. Should a rapist ever rape? No, but they have, they do, and they will so, as long as there are precautions that can be taken, they should be; unfortunately, some of us (myself included) learn this the hard way, while others never figure it out. That's not victim-blaming, the rapist simply should not rape but, knowing the rapist will rape, we can all take steps to make sure they don't rape us. Maybe, when we all do that, all they'll have left to rape is each other and, if anyone desreves rape (and I don't mean to imply that anyone does), its a rapist.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I meant to tap "Continue Editing", finger slipped. I added the bit about undermining the victim after I wrote the rest of the post; "the latter" actually refers to girls dressing a certain way.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Thanks for implying I'm a special snowflake, but I assure you I am not.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Precisely.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[penguinoid]

No, a search results link is indeed a valid citation, even a snarky lmgtfy version, although only in certain circumstances. It's only valid if the top search results support the point being made, which is not the case here. No one doubts that there are overturned rape convictions -- but that doesn't mean the rape didn't happen. Any more than overturned murder convictions prove the murder didn't happen.

Now, if he had provided a search results link for a study showing a high proportion of rape reports were falsified, that would be a different story. To a lesser extent, if he at least provided a search results link to rape reports leading to charges of filing a false police report. But overturned convictions provides no evidence at all for his claim.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Jesus dude, you seriously believe that women, as a general rule, make up rape claims? "majority are simply invalid"? NOT A CHANCE!
Lord Acton, go directly to hell!

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

How do you spot pseudoscience?
A reliance on anecdotal evidence with zero backing.
Seems to be modus viviendi for sexist thugs with a "right" to sex.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Cederic]

Mostly male, although 'unwanted hugs' got close to 'sexual assault' one time I was out while wearing a vinyl skirt with lots of petticoats. He may not have realised from behind what he was taking hold of..

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Uhm... These were not third-party "hearsay" anecdotes. I recounted personal experiences and I'm a sexist thug? Or am I a sexist thug simply because I'm male? Seems a bit sexist to me, personally, and butting in to make the claim seems somewhat thuggish on your part.

Let me guess, it's acceptable for you to talk about your rape? Only when it's a man doing the talking does it become unacceptable. As I said to dbill, thank you for illustrating the point I, and the post I was replying to, was trying to make.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

Thanks for implying I'm a special snowflake, but I assure you I am not

I'm now implying you can't read, or actually I'm outright stating it. Possibly an act of hyperbole, you decide.

I said you were unlucky, not a special snowflake. I'm also saying that simply being unlucky does not make you statistically representative.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Mostly male

Feel free not to answer, as I feel I may be prying, but transexual or simply transvestite?

He may not have realised from behind what he was taking hold of..

Sorry, I laughed at this. Not because he assaulted you, but because the end result was likely something he did not want. I always find it amusing when criminals get a "surprise".

I almost feel like, if there were more people like you in the world, there would be less rape. Sort of how violent crime drops in areas where it's easier to get a CCW because the criminals quickly learn that their victim is more likely to have a gun.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I'm also saying that simply being unlucky does not make you statistically representative.

Oh? Then I'm implying you forgot what you wrote. Let me remind:

However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Cederic]

Fair to say it's a continuum, and I'm on it.

I'm not transexual. I'm not a transvestite. I'm comfortable with blurring gender boundaries.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of a statement is related to its content. Is a rapist wrong if he says grass is green and the sky tends to be blue?

There is little value in exposing one's name for others to scrutinize, doxx, or otherwise harass. If you can't argue against a position without considering its source, you likely don't have an argument in the first place because whatever argument you *would* have is directed at the person, not the statement(s).

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I think it's fair to say, at least when you wear women's clothing, you are a transvestite. After all, that is the definition of the term. That said, I'm not here to open that particular can of worms and you're more than welcome to your own interpretation; after all it is your gender identity. Thank you for being willing to discuss it and not getting angry with me for not automatically getting it right, as so many other members of the (for my vocabulary's lack of a better term; please feel free to correct that) "gender-bending" population would have done.

Something about your posts in this thread gave me the impression that you are a well-adjusted and level-headed individual, which lead me to read through some of your posting history which, of course, confirmed that suspicion. I have to admit I'm still reading, it seems you've gained a fan today. There aren't many of us (well-adjusted and level-headed individuals, that is) left, it seems.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Cederic]

I think it's fair to say, at least when you wear women's clothing, you are a transvestite. After all, that is the definition of the term.

Transvetites get sexual pleasure from the clothes they're wearing - hence transvestites are a subset of people that cross-dress, as are the fashion freestylers (who define themselves as not intersecting transvestites at all, although I'm sure some TVs would disagree).

I'm not always level headed, but on this topic, I tend to be. But I've flatshared with a pre-op transexual who went to work as one gender and went out at night as another. You rapidly start to just kind of shrug and get one with life.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exoneration via DNA evidence is not "getting off on a technicality" though. The science is pretty solid, and has never been known to return a false negative.. If the DNA test exonerates the accused, the charge of rape against him is bogus.

And while there wasn't a statistical breakdown on the first page of google hits, there were a couple dozen examples. And even once is too many. "Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to arrest one innocent.", and all that.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Transvetites get sexual pleasure from the clothes they're wearing - hence transvestites are a subset of people that cross-dress

Huh. I thought transvestite and cross-dresser were synonyms and there was a different term (which I didn't take the time to learn because I never really cared to single those people out) for cross-dressing for sexual pleasure. Thanks for educating me on that point.

I'm not always level headed

What I've read so far of your posting history seems to disagree. But, then, nobody is always anything; I'm sure you're a bit different in real life than on the internet. We all are.

You rapidly start to just kind of shrug and get one with life.

I live in the San Francisco Bay area. I would imagine it's difficult to not be accepting of others here; I wouldn't know for certain as I've never tried. People are people (are people) and people will do what people will do. I'm not entirely sure why people get so bent out of shape over things that don't affect them (like someone with a penis wearing a skirt, for example -- though I suppose it certainly had an effect on the guy who tried to grope you), but that's the world we live in. If it wasn't, perhaps Christians and Muslims could finally get along and stop bombing each other, unwanted children wouldn't be born into lives of suffering, and war would once again almost make sense.

On that latter example, I mean to say that a war over wanting some country's oil reserves or land makes a lot more sense than a war over belief systems held by only a subset of the warring countries' respective populations. Not that either really make sense, when oil reserves and such can be bartered and traded for and more land simply means more work to govern. But, I digress; it seems that some people simply have too much time on their hands, and not enough sense, which leads to much of what we see today.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[onepoint]

the problem with the statement I had was, he pointed out he/she was a lawyer. just a simple link to your law firms add's value and weight to the discussion ( positive or negative ). my goal is to get more people to start making citation, helps make a better /.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[drolli]

Also important:

* did they state that the photographers were checked by them
* did the website state a warning (some web sites interesting for potential abusers do)
* what did the TOS say about whose obligation it is to do what?

But I mean, seriously, the police knew one of the guys tried to get a 13yo to pose semi-nude while he worked there and they just fired him?

I mean it's good that the judge allows to sue the website, but i for sure hope that the court will consider the fuckups of the police and possibly the carelessness of the woman when setting the damage to be paid.

(and yes, to me it sounded like she was careless - and not this is not the the same as "she deserved it". But if meeting somebody in a parking lot without proper identification and references beforehand is the way of conducting business for the digital natives, maybe the website is at fault)

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

I did not claim hearsay.
I said anecdotal, as in, NO WITNESSES
Pardon if I note that this is always the tactic of the losing side positing evidence that does not exist
How are your claims more valid than the Alien Abduction Victims Speak herd?
Not in any way at all

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you have to say about all the bogus murder reports? Clearly, the victims are faking it -- DNA evidence has proven a lot of the accused to be innocent.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are talking as an AC, the value of your statement is worthless. place your name and brand so your statements can have a weight.

No, the AC post isn't worthless. it's gives a good starting point for anyone who wishes to do research on the topic.

Secondly, you're asking for the AC to dox himself.
That is beyond stupid; it's a wtf level request. I have to suspect your motives when you request someone give personal information here.
Seriously, what are you thinking?

Suppose the AC had provided a name: Nick Brustin, found at http://www.nsbcivilrights.com/
Would you then consider the argument to be compelling?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can you not see that the "check your privilege" AC was being sarcastic and making fun of those people who use that phrase seriously?

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

You said yourself, its an AC the only weight it has is the weight you want to give to its opinion
Do you thing that adding a link to a law firm will add more weight? tell me what firm you like and I add it for you, happy?

The AC could instead add a link to the text of the applicable law , or to other relevant or similar cases but ultimately it bogs down to you agreeing with the interpretation of the law

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Oloryn]

Exactly right (that if you can't argue against a position without considering its source, you likely don't have an argument in the first place), but note that this has been roundly ignored in public discourse for years. It had gotten so common by the 1940's that C. S. Lewis felt compelled to make up a name for it - he called it Bulverism. Others have come up with their own monikers for it (Anthony Flew referred to it as the "Subject/Motive Shift", and it is more generically known as the genetic fallacy, or a motivational ad hominem). The technique is basically, don't bother trying to prove an opponent is wrong, just assume they're wrong, and "explain" what motivates them to say what they do. It also involves what I am beginning to call the 'omniscient imagination' fallacy, as there never is given any real evidence for the proffered motive, it is just assumed that if I can imagine that motivation, it *must* be true.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the implication is that the above is a work of fiction? Thank you for illustrating the point I, and the post I was replying to, was trying to make.

To be fair, you do have "Con" in your name...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

So, if a woman claims rape it must be true because all men are rapists, but if a man claims it it must be a lie because all rapists are men? What about when a woman claims rape and there are no witnesses? How are those claims any more valid than the Alien Abduction Victims Speak herd?

In the same way as mine.

Actually, in the case of my abusive ex, even less valid as there were witnesses. Try actually reading my post, you might learn something. The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.

So, if you're going to say that a woman's claim of rape is valid with no witnesses, so is a man's, and definitely so is my witness-backed and documented claim of domestic abuse.

It seems as though you'll only accept news reports as evidence; well, that's convenient for you since men falling victim to these things doesn't get reported on.

Here's some food for thought, though: there are two typical reasons for something to not be reported in the news; it didn't happen, or it happens so often it's no longer newsworthy. I'm here to tell you it happens, as it's happened to me. Must not be newsworthy, then, which means...

Have you ever been raped? Been falsely accused of rape? Been victim of domestic abuse? I can tell, from the tone of your posts on the subject, no, you have not. You'd take it a bit more seriously if you had.

Making light of rape and domestic abuse dilutes the suffering of all victims, men and women alike. Clearly, you don't care about men, so I'll appeal to the other half: don't dilute the suffering of women. It's a really shitty thing to do and it makes you a shitty person, no better than rapists or abusers.

Be better than a rapist or an abuser. Don't be a shitty person.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Noah Haders]

> Clearly, the victims are faking it

Maybe the victims were clearly raped, but they arrested the wrong guy. there's no link to the MRA assertion "they're all faking it".

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly right (that if you can't argue against a position without considering its source, you likely don't have an argument in the first place), but note that this has been roundly ignored in public discourse for years. It had gotten so common by the 1940's that C. S. Lewis felt compelled to make up a name for it - he called it Bulverism. Others have come up with their own monikers for it (Anthony Flew referred to it as the "Subject/Motive Shift", and it is more generically known as the genetic fallacy, or a motivational ad hominem). The technique is basically, don't bother trying to prove an opponent is wrong, just assume they're wrong, and "explain" what motivates them to say what they do. It also involves what I am beginning to call the 'omniscient imagination' fallacy, as there never is given any real evidence for the proffered motive, it is just assumed that if I can imagine that motivation, it *must* be true.

thank you

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

It goes further than that. In all of these cases, the "victim" at the very least filed false police reports, lying to accuse an innocent man. Quite probably, the majority of them perjured themselves in court as well. At that point... so far as I'm concerned anyway... liars, filers of false police reports, and perjurers have zero credibility and should not only not be believed, but should themselves be prosecuted.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Very much embellished to push an agenda very neatly or you've had a LOT of weird shit going on and High School teachers that should be locked up among many other things.
The "I'm capable of defending myself" especially looks like you are casting yourself in a movie instead of referring to reality.

So yes, I really find the above unlikely as written despite living near a few mentally ill people who nearly fit the stereotype you are using. Reality often comes off as not so perfect as to easily push an agenda.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

I make statements about science, engineering and mathematics here all the time without linking to the universities and companies I've worked for. Why should the AC do as you ask? Neither of us are doing it.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I wasn't sure, which is why I didn't respond. Unless you are that AC, you can't be sure, either; there are people, including on this very site, who would post that in all seriousness. I can only hope it was a joke.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

:) It's short for Bronstrup Consulting, the company I ran when I created this account. It has since been renamed, but, alas, Slashdot does not allow for changing usernames and I'd like to keep my excellent karma.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Whoop-de-fucking doo. Want references? Look them up.

The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.

Can't provide anything for the rape accusations, as no charges were ever actually filed. There should be record of the harassment incident, though I'm not sure if Ben Davis HS (Indianapolis, IN) will release information like that about one of their former students who was a minor at the time. If you wish to pursue it, the incident occurred in the 97-98 or 98-99 school year (I don't recall for sure which year, but that should narrow it down enough).

Happy hunting.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Christ your schools are utterly fucked up. The rest I'll take as being a part of the story Mr Action Hero.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Meh... My regaling wasn't for you in the first place; it was in support of others who've been through shit similar to what I've been through, whether male, female, or other. Believe what you want, I'm not looking for a shoulder to cry on as I've made peace with my past years ago.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

Oh? Then I'm implying you forgot what you wrote. Let me remind:

I didn't say you were a special snowflake, but I'm beginning to thing the "special" part might be true.

I've said you were unlucky twice now, this making it a third time. You're one datapoint, but that doesn't necessarily make you statistically representative. This is a very, very simple point of statistics that you seem utterly unable to grasp.

I look forwards to you lurching off on some other angry tangent.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Personally I think you are utterly full of shit and not worth crying over - 3 women falsely accusing you of rape and one raping you? Stuff of twisted fantasy. Penthouse letters to the editor from virgins territory.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I was presenting mysslf as an example, not a proof. The tone of your comment sounded like you were discounting my experience as irrelevant. Can you not see how your comment may have been highly offensive to someone? I should say it is you, not me, who has the problem. No angry tangent, just stating my view. Oh, and it's "looking forward".

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Did anyone ask what you think? Well here, I'll ask. If I were a woman would you be discounting my experience just the same? Have you ever been raped or accused of rape? I should assume not or... well, actually, there's no need to type it all out again. This post applies equally to you.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, "check your privilege" is an obvious poke at the type of folk who would say that as a cis-hetero white male he cannot be a victim.

But they are beyond parody, it seems.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because you forgot to check your privilege. Your story doesn't fit the narrative, bro. In fact, you should probably apologize to all of the rape victims that you have othered by your mere existence. I mean, really, it is as if you just raped them all over again. You have to understand that your misogyny is what drives the world's evil.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

I was presenting mysslf as an example, not a proof.

No you weren't. Someone said it was more common, and you said basically yes it is see it happened to me. In common parlance that is you holding it up as evidence.

You in fact started your post in support of the idea it was more common.

Can you not see how your comment may have been highly offensive to someone

If one is going to worry about every misunderstanding, no matter how strange and resistant to further explanation, lest one cause offence, then no-one would say anything. If you find the statistics that say it isn't in fact common offensive, then there is nothing I can do for you. If you think it's my fault that I misinterpreted you when your post was at best unclear and then got offended, then you get offended far too easily.

Ps if your going to go all grammer nazi you should do it correctly and check you're post for spelling mistakes.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[drinkypoo]

The "I'm capable of defending myself" especially looks like you are casting yourself in a movie instead of referring to reality.

I'm capable of defending myself, too. Does that make everything I say bullshit? Or are you just incapable of defending yourself?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying the murder victims filed a false police report?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=murder+conv...

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[onepoint]

it's amazingly easy if someone makes a statement, and they have a user ID. the weight of past statement leads toward validation or value of their future statement. I go on long discussion when it's real estate, but on other subject's, I might state my own personal observation, or action, or ask for citation of sources. an A/C that state they are a lawyer is most likely not, A lawyer has nothing to hide.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

No you weren't. Someone said it was more common, and you said basically yes it is see it happened to me. In common parlance that is you holding it up as evidence.

Why, yes, that's evidence. As I said, it 's not proof; a larger study would need to be conducted. But it's certainly evidence that such a study should be done.

If one is going to worry about every misunderstanding, no matter how strange and resistant to further explanation, lest one cause offence, then no-one would say anything.

If you take the time to formulate your thoughts into clear and concise sentences before speaking, you needn't worry about misunderstandings. Will they still happen and will some people still take offense? Yes, some people just can't parse language; that's their problem, not yours. Before you go on to tell me that I'm, clearly, failing to parse your post, finish reading mine.

If you find the statistics that say it isn't in fact common offensive

You posted no statistics, nor facts, only opinion. Facts do not offend, opinions based on nothing, however, do.

To address part of your original comment that appears to show your confusion:

statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people

I never claimed this, but the fact that you're attempting to attack it really makes it sound like, just maybe, you're saying I'm the only man who's had such experiences. Before you imply that I'm just imagining this, consider the example you gave.

Ps if your going to go all grammer nazi you should do it correctly and check you're post for spelling mistakes.

Point one out? Ah... I get it... trolling. Now, was it just that line, or are all of your posts here similar in intent?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I generally agree with that article, except that I would replace "women" with "rape victims" and "men" with "rapists". Either gender can take on either role; except in the few places in the world where the legal definition of rape prohibits it In those places, a woman may sexually assault a man but, in a legal sense, cannot rape.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Now this is a much more obvious joke than the other "check your privilege" AC above. BRAVO!

Let me springboard from here to point out that, in face, inequality is what drives the world's evil. The same way it is evil that a business owner (more likely an HR department) may[1] pay a woman less than a man for the same work, it is evil that a woman might discount the rape and domestic abuse of a man. Both are examples of inequality and both need to stop happening. Period.

Put another way, when a woman speaks of her rape and a man says it never happened, people scream "he's raping her all over again!" Why is the same not true when it's a man speaking? I mean, no, I don't consider people denying what happened to me to be a continuation of the rape; I've made peace with my past, I did so years ago. I'm not insinuating that anyone should be standing up and screaming that on my behalf; merely pointing out that nobody should be doing it for anyone unless they're literally physically being re-raped at that moment. Hell, even then they shouldn't be screaming about it, they should be stopping the rapist; standing there and watching, not doing so, makes them no better than that rapist. Follow?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Gah... typo... "in face" should be "in fact". Also, I forgot my footnote, so here's that:

[1] Yes, I said "may". Because it's not a given. I've certainly seen it from large corporations I worked for when I was young, dumb, and didn't know how shitty it was to work for a large corporation. And I've seen it in the news regarding smaller companies. But, working for those corporations gave me some insight, which has helped me avoid continuing to work for companies that discriminate; I noted that they'll cut costs anywhere they can and wages are one of the easiest things they think they can cut without any repercussions. The reality is that these companies pay all of the peons at the bottom less than they're worth; and they pay women and minorities even less. I'm not going to deny that, but I will attempt to explain it. No, not explain it away, it's still wrong, but you must understand something before you can change it.

You see, the people making payroll decisions for these companies are driven by inequality. Any difference between you and them is an additional inequality, for which they'll pay you less. Don't run a multi-billion-dollar corporation? Don't deserve the same pay as them. They're male and you're not? Less pay. Different color skin? Less pay. Different-sounding last name? Less pay.

Having this insight, I've been able to avoid working for smaller companies that discriminate like this. It's not hard, really, unless you're hard-up for work, in which case you take what you can get (but you keep looking for something better -- that's the important part). When you go in for your interview, look around. Do you see a decent mix of people?

Is it all white guys? If it's all white guys and you're not a white guy, you're gonna have a bad time. Don't take the job in hopes of "changing the status quo" because you'll just be made an example of; and if you do decide to martyr yourself, don't complain about it. Martyrs don't complain. Also, it's not just white guys, it's any heterogeneous population; white guys are just the go-to example everyone recognizes, a good attention-getter.

Are there a disproportionate number of minorities and/or women? If there are, you're probably interviewing at a place that hires people they think they can pay less. RUN! As with any rule, there are exceptions to this, but it's a good indicator. Again, don't martyr yourself; and if you do, remember, martyrs don't complain.

I could go on, but those are the two biggest indicators I've found. If you note a decent mix of ethnicities and a balance (relative to the population of available workers in the field, not the population as a whole) between genders, you've likely found a place that will pay you based on your qualifications and work output, rather than your gender or skin color. As for how to deal with the abusive companies? Don't. It's that simple. All the best talent is spread across the genders and races, so a company that only (typically) hires one type will miss out on most of it, eventually falling prey to their competitors who've chosen to hire people with actual qualifications. Menawhile, a company that hires only those they think they can get away with paying less might luck into talent form time to time, but they'll lose that talent quickly, eventually falling prey to their competitors who've chosen to pay their talented employees what they're worth. It's literally a system seeking stability; fucking with it only adds to the chaos and prolongs the condition. Plus, do you really want to deal with the racists and sexists at those places? Again, don't be a martyr; not only is it unpleasant for you, it actually perpetuates the problem, rather than helping to solve it. Don't contribute your time and effort to help a shitty company succeed!

Didn't mean for my footnote to become a rant; hopefully someone finds it useful.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Dread_ed]

So if people are becoming increasingly concerned with the individual making the statement, rather than the statement itself, what does that mean for the level of scrutiny applied by on observer toward someone they are predisposed to like or have otherwise allied himself with? Seems like it would drop off next to nothing.

This would explain many things.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[david_thornley]

DNA can't show that no rape took place. DNA can show that this man did not commit that rape. The DNA exonerations are not evidence that women claim rape happened when it didn't.

Without digging through these cases, I'd suspect these were primarily cases of stranger rape, where the victim couldn't identify the rapist at the time, which means that the victims probably didn't start by making false accusations, but identified the wrong assailant.

False rape reports do happen, but I've seen no evidence that there's many of them. Given the stereotypical treatment of a rape victim, it wouldn't be the first choice for most women.

The big problem with rape is that it's very difficult to convict, and so in a situation like this, waiting for a rape conviction can result in a large number of preventable rapes taking place.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[david_thornley]

Inevitably, when a source is provided, they will simply claim the source is biased or is not to be trusted.

The fact is, Mr./Ms. Coward, that I've seen you post a large number of varying nonsensical things, so I really don't trust you.

If someone makes a claim that seems plausible to me, I'll generally not ask for sources (I might ask for pointers to poke around further). If someone makes a claim I consider almost certainly false, I might well ask for sources. It happens that people who spout nonsense frequently get it from highly unreliable sources, so if I do ask for a source the source is likely to be bad in some way. I figure that, if a claim is reasonable, there's probably a reasonable source out there, so if all I get is dodgy sources I usually don't inquire further.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

As I said, it 's not proof; a larger study would need to be conducted. But it's certainly evidence that such a study should be done.

Crikey.

Cherry picking one datapoint is not evidence of anything except for existence.

What happened is the OP said "they are more common". You said "this! It happened to me.". That is you supporting the OP's claim by providing a single, cherrypicked datapoint (you).

As for studies: criminal statistics are a thing, though it's obviously hard to...

wait, you've no idea what the claimed rates are, OR what studies have been done and yet you are supporting the OP's point that they are "more common than you think" holding yourself up as the only piece of evidence.

whut.

You posted no statistics, nor facts, only opinion. Facts do not offend, opinions based on nothing, however, do.

quite so, my man quite so!

I never claimed this, but the fact that you're attempting to attack it really makes it sound like, just maybe, you're saying I'm the only man who's had such experiences.

If you think that you seriously need to go take some English classes and learn basic comprehension. I've explained the point several times and every time you have completely ignored my explanation and gone back to parroting your original point. It's as if you don't want to hear.

One more time for the deaf old lady in the back: The fact it happened to you is not evidence that it's more common thatn I think.

Point one out?

How about I point out two? First, "mysslf" is not a word. Second you incorrectly corrected what I wrote to "looking forward" which would have made "I looking forward". What you should have corrected it to was "look forward" to make "I look forward..."

I get it... trolling

Irregardless of what you think, it was taking the piss, not trolling. Entirely apropriate with misplaced grammer naziism.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[david_thornley]

I'm going to want to know the details of the methodology for any such study. It would be so easy to make mistakes.

Determining whether a rape accusation is true or false is really difficult, and this is true even after the claimed victim recants. There's far too much crap going on, and there's lots of reasons why a victim might do so to avoid further hassle.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Cherry picking one datapoint is not...

... what I was dong. I was stating my experience; trust me, if I were cherry-picking, I wouldn't have picked those experiences.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Lots of spew, but where is your support for your claims?
Like I said, your claims are meaningless without verification
Pure anecdote without support.
Stop whining, produce evidence.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I repeat:

Actually, in the case of my abusive ex, even less valid as there were witnesses. Try actually reading my post, you might learn something. The police report is a matter of public record, along with witness statements; so is the restraining order paperwork. Macomb County, MI. Last name should be obvious if you google around a bit.

I gave you the information required to verify at least a portion of my claims ;the rest, of course there is no record as my accusers never actually filed. As for the harassment accusation, if you think you can get a school to release information about an incident involving their (at the time) minor students, I've provided those details elsewhere in the discussion as well. If you actually wish to pursue it, I'll provide them to you directly.

But, again, it's not reported in the news so, to you, it didn't happen. It's not that my claims can't be verified, just that you're afraid to verify them.

I would never wish for anyone to experience the things I talked about in that post; but, if I would, I'd wish it on people like you.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

No, you did not. No case number to look up validated information introduced into court, nothing identifying the case as being yours, nothing whatsoever.
Don't tell me, you're a Trumpista, right?
He also calls " Trust me" proof.
He lies a lot.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

No case number because I've moved on, I don't hang on to that shit, it was 13 years ago. It can be found be looking up my last name (look up, just a bit, from here and you'll find it) and hers: Schenburn.

But it's easier to just dismiss people off-hand, isn't it? Again, would you do the same to a woman?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I just went to do your work for you and it appears that older records are no longer available online since Macomb County moved to a new document storage solution. You should still be able to call or write in to get it, though.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[torkus]

It's a site to bring largely anonymous people together, often in private spaces.

Since the US assumes our citizens are blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid ... yes they should, and very likely do, point out that if you Do Things then Bad Things can happen. Like meeting strangers for a modeling shoot in a private venue. Or meeting strangers. Or crossing the street to meet the strangers. Etc. The way the law exists is ridiculous and why everything has a pointless warning label that no one pays attention to.

Putting actual responsibility for the actions of any individual using their website on the owners is utterly impractical. Let's say these guys were previously convicted of rape, did their time, and now are photographers. Should the site disclose that? Should they be responsible to even check? (mind you that's one crime out of a million possible ones) What if there's allegations but no convictions? You can follow the branching logic as far down the rabbit hole as you like and never find the end...for every solution there's an unlimited number of further problems. There's a point where people need to use their own judgment on things. If you're going to meet someone from MM, craigslist, match, tinder, jdate, meetup, or even facebook...you need to evaluate and decide for yourself to do so or not.

It's horrible business, and owners generally do their best to limit things like this anyway...but giving them a legal responsibility is the wrong direction. Site owners are going to go over the top to exclude all responsibility and intentionally distance themselves from any possible information that could say 'they knew' or 'should have known' ... and instead of being able to exclude some people when it comes to light they'll simply was their hands of it all. Great idea...

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[torkus]

So you're saying a social website is expected to follow up on any claim of wrong-doing by a member that happens off the site?

With what authority exactly?

Think about that a bit further and decide if you want to give every social site power to judge you a rapist or not based on someone's allegation and the 'due dilligence' of a company aimed at photographers and models, not investagating crimes.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

I was... ... cherrypicking datapoints.

I knew it!

You weren't merely stating your experience, you were doing it to lend support to the argument that it was more common.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

More common than what? More common than the common reader thinks it is.

Thank you for dragging this on and making me look at it from a few different perspectives in order to answer you. Yes, my one data point does, contrary to my earlier statement, serve as proof that it happens more than the common person thinks it happens. Allow me to explain.
It's a common belief that it doesn't happen at all; it takes only a single data point to disprove that. Therefore, one incident is all it takes to prove it happens more often than you (the collective you, as in the common person, not you specifically; get over yourself) think it does.

Want to keep going so you can look even more foolish? The mistake you (literally you) made in this case was thinking that the "you" referred to in the AC post that sparked all of this was literally you, rather than a reference to the general population. Here's a hint: Slashdot isn't your private forum.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Coren22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The FBI claims the incidence of false accusations is around 8%. I don't know where the AC is getting a most out of 8%, but there are numbers.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Coren22]

That majority comes out to 8% according to the FBI, try harder to troll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[Rakarra]

TL;DR Please don't fall for the memes. Suicide isn't a cowards way out in general though it in most cases is a bad solution. Hitlers suicide wasn't due to cowardice.

Hitler was affected by Mussolini's execution and vowed that when the 3rd Reich fell, he would die with it rather than be answerable to anything that happened.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

What do I think? I think that if the police were not involved at all in the declaration then it's not an "accusation of rape" but instead a heated argument where someone has insulted you by calling you a rapist. MASSIVE DIFFERENCE.
This "men's rights activism" shit is 99% whining from weaklings IMHO.

The post you link to is misleading if the legal process is not involved at all. Whining to drinking buddies is one thing but spreading poison in the minds of those kids, who unlike you, are not old enough to know better, is another thing.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[serviscope_minor]

It's a common belief that it doesn't happen at all;

Like hell. You just made that up on the spot.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

You ignore the actual rape, though I suppose you'll say it didn't happen because it went unreported. I was 17, I was a dumb kid so, not only was it rape vecause I was drugged, it was statutory rape because she was 18 and I was a minor.

You also ignore the domestic abuse that actually happened. And the harassment accusation that did involve a legal process, as well as the court proceedings relating to the restraining order.

You ignore these things and pick apart the rape accusations because... well, I don't know why. You tell me.

As for the one who backed down when I reminded her she had taken video of our encounter, she actually did go to the police. They reported their visit to my door as a wellfare check so they wouldn't have to arrest her for filing a false report when I informed them of the facts; she wasn't willing to let it go even then, until I reminded her that the video would be shown in court.

The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders. You might not like that fact, and that's something we can actually agree on, even if for different reasons. You don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative; I don't like it because most of those things actually happened to me. Can we just agree to... well... agree?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Gr8Apes]

Here's a thought on rape and abuse cases, take a page from England. Don't allow publishing of victims nor suspects until the case has been proven as guilty in court. Given social media etc, it's ridiculous that you can effectively be tainted by a single statement and nothing in libel law will allow redress, because, technically, that statement is true at the time it was made. People in general are stupid, and seeing "suspect in a rape case" or "person of interest" and "rape" or "abuse" next to each other and in association with a person's name immediately makes the leap in most of these people's minds that they're guilty, because... it's on the internet. Given the general trends of education these days and the removal of focus on anything related to critical thinking, I'd say it's safe to say that the situation will not improve.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

so, your not a sweet transvestite from Transsexual, Transylvania?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Given the general trends of education these days and the removal of focus on anything related to critical thinking, I'd say it's safe to say that the situation will not improve.

Sad, but true. Critical thinking and situational awareness are both sorely missing from the US education system. is this really true elsewhere in the world, as well?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Gr8Apes]

Critical thinking and situational awareness are both sorely missing from the US education system. is this really true elsewhere in the world, as well?

Given my experience working with various entities and people across Europe and Asia, I'd have to say this is not a US only trend.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Not really
But it is very easy to dismiss YOUR claims, given they seem to exist only in your head
At least, insofar as the record of evidence you have offered.
The usual mark of pseudoscience is on your claims.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

So you admit there are NO records? Figures.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Well, on one hand that's good to know... on the other hand... fuck.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

No. Read my entire post, dumbfuck. You have to pick up the phone or maybe fill out a form and mail it in. But I guess for a worthless lazy "hand me all the information or it doesn't exist" piece of fucking shit like you, yes, that means there are no records.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

You can go get fucked right off a cliff along with anyone else who's ever denied anyone'e rape or domestic abuse claims on the basis of show me the documentation. Seriously. Get fucked.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

You ignore the actual rape

Unreliable witness problem - see also "I know how to defend myself" and other bits that make your stuff read like a confected letter to Penthouse instead of reality.
You've already called slander a rape accusation. How am I to know what you are calling your "actual rape" really was especially since you say was never tested by any part of the legal process? I only have your word which hasn't held up at all with you calling slander a "rape accusation". From here I am very sorry to say you just look like an utterly pathetic whiner pushing an agenda like most of the other "men's rights" weenies that complain about things like women being cast in Mad Max. Do you really want to come across that way in public?
Is pushing your agenda really so important that you are willing to be only taken seriously by the gullible and naive?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

You ignore the actual rape

From your story so did the police so it doesn't sound very "actual".
Which parts of your story am I supposed to believe or not? From your current version I should ignore it as a big deal while your original letter to penthouse description makes it as a big deal.

Re:Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

A lawyer has nothing to hide

One that I know hides his address and phone number because of credible death threats despite only handling wills and divorces.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Who are you trying to convince, you or me? I was drugged and fucked against my will. That is rape.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Uh... the police didn't ignore it; as I stated elsewhere in the discussion I was a dumb kid (I was 17) and didn't report it. In fact, most male rape victims don't report.

Again, who are you trying to convince? Me or yourself? Because you're wasting your time trying to convince me that something very real that happened to me did not happen.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Uh... the police didn't ignore it

Which of your stories am I to believe? What you said before about the police dropping the entire thing or this new statement?

Again, who are you trying to convince

I am trying to convince you to stop misleading the actual kiddies for the sake of childishly pushing a fucking stupid "poor little oppressed men" agenda. It's probably time you acted your age.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Which of your stories am I to believe?

Well, considering that there are several incidents being discussed here, let's take a look and see if you're confusing two or more of them.

What you said before about the police dropping the entire thing

Well, the police did drop their investigation into a rape I was accused of.

or this new statement?

Which was about my rape, not one I was accused of. So yeah, looks like you were confused.

I am trying to convince you to stop misleading the actual kiddies

So, then, you're trying to convince me I wasn't raped and that I was not a victim of domestic abuse. You're trying to convince me I wasn't almost expelled from school due to a false accusation of sexual harassment. You're trying to convince me that a lot of things that actually happened to me did not, in fact, happen and that by talking about them I'm somehow misleading people.

for the sake of childishly pushing a fucking stupid "poor little oppressed men" agenda.

So you're implying I'm making shit up. Well, we can agree on one thing: people who make shit up are childish. I can assure you, however, that I don't fit that profile.

It's probably time you acted your age.

Ha. :)

By the way, my wife says you're a cunt. I don't disagree with her.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Which was about my rape, not one I was accused of

Wasn't that dropped as well? Didn't you say that in between stuff about things on video?

So you're implying I'm making shit up

Not implying, I have pointed it out explictly. You have pretended that slander not reported to police is a "false rape report". You have made up the "false rape reports". As you kids say "not cool dude"

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

By the way, my wife says you're a cunt. I don't disagree with her.

Since I am basicly calling you a lying prick for inflating a sensitive personal story out of all proportion of course she does. There are no winners when you bare your dirty linen and pretend it is something bigger than it really is to try to push an agenda - I'm the guy kicking the puppy for peeing all over the floor. Please stop peeing all over the floor kid, this men's rights shit is poison.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Wasn't that dropped as well?

No, that was, as I've said several times now, not reported as I was a dumb kid and, honestly quite embarrassed about it at the time.

Didn't you say that in between stuff about things on video?

No, the video was one of my accusers. You don't really have to ask what I said earlier, you do realize you can go back and read it again, right? Maybe actually try to follow it this time?

Not implying, I have pointed it out explictly.

Again, who are you trying to convince? I'd know if I were making anything up and, well, you won't convince me that I am because, plainly, I know better.

You have pretended that slander not reported to police is a "false rape report".

I never said "report", I said "accusation". Funny how you stopped trying to argue the accusation point after I gave you the definition in response to one of your other posts and are now claiming I said "report", as in "filed with the police".

You have made up the "false rape reports".

As I just explained, no, you made up the false reports, I never said false report, I said false accusation. Nice redirect, though, attacking something I never claimed when you realize you can't attack my actual claim anymore.

As you kids say "not cool dude"

Just how young do you think I am? But you're right, what you're doing here is not cool.

I implore you to scour the web for any evidence that I'm an activist of any type. Show some evidence of the supposed agenda you purport that I am pushing. Show anywhere else that I've brought these incidents up. You'll find a handful of Slashdot threads if you go back enough years, and you'll find that the details match up. Beyond that, however, well... I'm not very active for being a supposed activist with an agenda to push. And how can you claim I'm arguing for men's rights when I'm flat out repeating the message that rape, domestic abuse, harassment, and false accusations (of anything are wrong regardless of who commits the acts or who is on the receiving end? Seems to me that I'm saying there is (or at least, there should be) some equality there, not that men should have rights women don't, or that men's rights need to be protected, but that all people should have the same rights and the rights of all people should be protected.

You, on the other hand... Well... I didn't have to look beyond your Slashdot posting history to see just how politically active you try to be. Who's the activist here? Who has the agenda? Hmm...

You're the one discounting rape, domestic abuse, sexual harassment, and false accusations. You're the one pushing a fairly heavy agenda and hiding behind a false name while doing so. Me? My email address, partially comprised of my last name, is right there; it doesn't take more than a few clicks to find out who I am. I'm not hiding like you are; might that be because I've nothing to hide, while you do? I should say so.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Jesus Christ, who's the one blowing shit put of proportion and pushing an agenda? You, puppy-kicker. You.

In fact, you're so busy pushing your agenda that you couldn't even be assed to follow what you were reading when you read my initial post, leading you to miss and confuse several key details.

Don't be surprised if that puppy you're kicking grows up and bites your fucking face off.

Please stop peeing all over the floor kid

Again, just how young do you think I am?

this men's rights shit is poison.

Another thing we agree on, actually. I count at least 3 of those, now. Perhaps take a step back, take a deep breath, and give that some deep thought before you post again?

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

read my initial post, leading you to miss and confuse several key details.

You were dishonest in a story complaining about dishonesty and then couldn't stand my very mild rebuke so kept pushing for increasingly blunt rebukes.

Again, just how young do you think I am?

You told me when you went to high school remember, that's about when I was teaching engineering students. Old enough to know better but still acting like a stupid whiny kid with this pissweak gutless victim shit when you are anything but that. Maybe I was like that at your age now but I doubt it.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

Wasn't that dropped as well?
No, that was,

Then obviously what I have written stands.

I never said "report", I said "accusation".

Don't try to weasel your way out. You wanted to pretend that you could have been one of those guys falsely convicted of rape as was being discussed so you wrote that letter to penthouse and put just enough truth in it so you could be rightously angry when someone called you out on your dishonesty.
Pathetic and twisting the minds of the kiddies that don't know any better.


It shit like this that let Jimmie Saville, Bill Crosby, Phil Spector and many others be accused (to the police obviously) of rape many times and they could laugh it off as a false accusation. Don't just add to that shit because it is fashionable. Be a real man instead.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

I've nothing to hide, while you do?

I'm wearing pants so obviously I am hiding something. Idiot.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I work from home and I'm on the 3rd floor with the blinds drawn. Completely nude at the moment.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Wasn't that dropped as well?

No, that was,

Then obviously what I have written stands.

Seems you're missing something... let's see, what could it b? OH!

... as I've said several times now, not reported as I was a dumb kid and, honestly quite embarrassed about it at the time.

So, no, what you wrote does not stand; only if you ignore literally 90% of what I wrote could you possibly believe that it did. And, oh, look, you quoted literally the 10% that, in absence of the 90%, would appear to support your twisted view of reality

You wanted to pretend that you could have been one of those guys falsely convicted of rape

You assume this. You are also wrong, but don't let that stop you.

Pathetic and twisting the minds of the kiddies that don't know any better.

You seem to be projecting, here. Personally, I prefer to give people some credit for being able to figure shit out; that's why we're still having this discussion. You're so transparent that I'm positive that 100% of people who read any portion of this will see just how twisted and fucked up you've gotten over the years, attacking someone for posting about some bad shit in their past.

It shit like this that let Jimmie Saville, Bill Crosby, Phil Spector and many others be accused (to the police obviously) of rape many times and they could laugh it off as a false accusation

I can assure you that me standing up and truthfully speaking about my experiences has nothing to do with it.

Nah, man, it's their money, which they use to pay for lawyers. Also, their notoriety and the fact that they're well known and generally liked and trusted. It's hard to accuse someone you like and trust of rape, and it's hard to believe someone else who does.

What you're doing, on the other hand, attacking someone who is speaking truthfully and from the heart about shit people would rather didn't happen, contributes to more and more of it being swept under the rug because, honestly, nobody wants to deal with people like you after being raped.

Don't just add to that shit because it is fashionable. Be a real man instead.

Hell, I'm so confident that I'm speaking honestly (because, well, I was there) that I'll even point out the one inconsistency in my story: I said none of my accusers went to the police, then later mentioned that one did. Of course, you have to think about why that detail may have slipped my mind. Let's see... because I'm not an activist who spouts bullshit all day (or I'd have the story straight by now, dig?) and I've talked about it maybe twice since it happened 13 years ago, it was less than fresh in my mind. In fact, I've talked about any of these incidents maybe a total of 6 times in the 19 years since the first of them (my rape) occurred. Yes, I'm such an activist and I'm pushing that agenda really hard.

Get over yourself.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

You were dishonest

You're telling me this like you think you're going to convince me. Please, stop wasting your time. I was there, you were not. I get to sleep at night knowing that I'm speaking the truth, while you'll always have the voice in the back of your head, nagging you about whether or not you were wrong about me.

You told me when you went to high school remember

Yeah, wasn't sure you got that. Thought that may have been just one more detail you missed.

pissweak gutless victim shit

You think that's what this is?

you are anything but that.

Bingo. I never said I felt victimized by shit, I said shit happened to me and I got over it years ago. I don't go around posting about it and raising a fuss about it everywhere. I do bring it up when it's relevant, like in this thread; I think one or more of the incidents have come up maybe 6 times in the past 19 years since the first of them (my rape) occurred. Further, I never said I am a rape victim, I said I was one; likewise with domestic abuse. I was a victim of both of those things, I came to terms with what happened, removed those people from my life, and got on with it; I am no longer a victim of either. That is neither pissweak, gutless, not victim shit. That's being a damn adult and getting over shit.

Maybe I was like that at your age now but I doubt it.

I doubt it, too; you clearly have not moved on from whatever hurt you.

Look, we seem to agree on the key points here[1-3]; the only point of contention appears to be whether or not my claims are factual in nature. Here's the thing about that, though: I don't need your validation, I was there, I know what happened, and yes, I'm allowed to talk about it, so just let that argument go already. I'll ask again:

Can we just agree to... well... agree?

[1] The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders. You might not like that fact, and that's something we can actually agree on, even if for different reasons. You don't like it because it doesn't fit your narrative; I don't like it because most of those things actually happened to me.
[2] Well, we can agree on one thing: people who make shit up are childish. I can assure you, however, that I don't fit that profile.
[3] "this men's rights shit is poison." Another thing we agree on, actually.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Rakarra]

Nearly every time I see someone demanding sources it's in reaction to some bizarre statement that a poster made who couldn't back up what they said.
Sometimes, they can bring up some study or news source that verifies their assertion, but often they're just repeating some nonsense that they just heard from a guy who heard it from a guy, or their just saying something that "well, everyone knows it to be true." But many "facts" are not facts when they come from partisan and/or fanatic websites, since they employ the same types -- people who quote editorials and speculation as facts, people who make up facts, people who ignore evidence that doesn't support their biases.

I think it's a healthy dose of "don't trust the messenger."

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Rakarra]

Nobody gives a flying fuck about your stupid UID dipshit, it's the content of the comments that counts ONLY. Anything else is just cliquey bullshit for retards like you to feel special about themselves because of how meaningless their lives are.

Before you flew off the handle, did you consider that the UID was germane to the discussion at hand, which was what Slashdot really was like in "the old days?"

(I remember what slashdot was like way back when, and I don't really recall a difference then and now wrt posting delays)

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[dbIII]

You're telling me this like you think you're going to convince me

I don't have to convince someone who already knows what they did. I'm calling you to account.

Using falsehoods to complain about dishonesty would be hilarious in a different context. Using to excuse rapists however, not so funny.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I don't have to convince someone who already knows what they did. I'm calling you to account.

That call's just gonna keep ringing, it's not going to be answered because there's no-one by the name "lying MRA" here.

Using falsehoods to complain about dishonesty would be hilarious in a different context. Using to excuse rapists however, not so funny.

Who's excusing rapists? I'm certainly not, as I've said (and repeated now several times) rape is inexcusable. Okay, so I said "bad", literally, but a wise person might infer. You did not infer, so...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

So, your solution is "Believe him or else"?
I think you should go screw a rug, it's all that will have you, it seems

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Once more, a Donald Trump "Trust me, I'm telling the truth" is as worthless as your empty claim
Pity.
Yet another whine without basis

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Trump? Really? For all I care he can build his wall with himself on the other side of it. It really isn't my fault picking up the phone or sending in a form is too much work for you, but there really is a world outside of the internet. Plenty of basis, you're just too afraid to actually loom for it.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

So, your solution is "Believe him or else"?

My solution is to apply the same standard you would apply to a woman. If that's the standard you'd apply to a woman, well, I think you're nuts, but yes. If you'd apply something a bit more sensible to a woman's claim, the same should be apied to a man's. What's so hard to understand about that?

I think you should go screw a rug, it's all that will have you, it seems

Hmm... I bet my rapist, several girls I've dated over the past 19 years, and my wife would disagree. Projecting much?

I wouldn't advertise being an autodidact, you seem to have not learnt much.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[alexandru_preoteasa]

Replying to undo a bad mod point. Should've been "Insightful" not "Redundant...

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Nope.
He does not come her complaining of a crime suffered by 1 in THREE men
thus HIS claims are extraordinary and require extraordinary evidence.
33% of women will suffer at least one sexual assault in her lifetime. One in three. Ordinary.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

If you don't have the information, like any extraordinary claim, it must be dismissed.
Principle of parsimony
Men are NOT 33% likely to suffer legal assault as you claim, you need real evidence of YOUR case.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

To discount one rape is to discount them all. As someone who has, clearly, never been through it, you are on the wrong side of this and need to shut up.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

Uh... you pick up the phone, you press some buttons, you say some words, you get some information. It's not that hard. Not being on the internet does not make something not exist. The incidents I describe occurred 13, 14, 16, and 19 years ago. As a well-adjusted healthy adult, I don't exactly carry documentation of any of it aroundaround in a folder that never leaves my hand. You can find the information, it's there, it exists, I've told you where to look, you're simply too afraid to go looking because it doesn't fit your narrative. Grow the fuck up and stop discounting rape.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[Noah Haders]

Holy shizz an actual fact with an actual data source to back it up (citation on the wiki page). GTFO, this kind of nonsense has no place here.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

Once more, if you cannot produce it, stop claiming it exists.
Me playing phone tag isn't research.
You failing to produce the PUBLIC RECORD NUMBER isn't either

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[AutodidactLabrat]

As far as we can tell, with your failure to produce case file numbers, slip numbers for the verdict, case appelate numbers, you haven't been through anything.
That's a bare minimum of what MUST exist in any case concluded before any court.
You suspiciously have none of them.
Pardon me if I let my intelligence not be swayed by your claims without facts.

Re: Did they know who the culprits were?

[BronsCon]

I'm not the one questioning whether it happened. If you need the proof, you do the work, I've already told you exactly where to look. I, personally, know what happened, because I was there, it happened to me and I really don't need to go back to those events by way of obtaining the reports. Such privilege, though, thinking it should just be handed to you.

AutodidactLabrat, interesting name for a piece of shit such as yourself. Autodidact: a self-taught person. And we all know what a lab rat is. So, here's an experiment you can try, lab rat: go see if you self-fuck better than you self-teach.

Not user-posted content at issue here

[Todd Knarr]

The liability isn't being created by user-posted content in this case. It stems from the site actually knowing about the actions of some users and failing to give notice when it could foresee that that failure would put other users at risk. It's the same principle that says that if I know of a danger on my property and fail to post notice of it or take steps to keep people out I'm liable if someone gets hurt by it. Section 230 never comes into play.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[misexistentialist]

Don't the terms of use of any website include the equivalent of "Enter at your own risk"?

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[guruevi]

Your example depends largely on your jurisdiction. Some have successfully allowed thieves to sue because they got injured breaking and entering, others allow you to beat or shoot to death anyone who appears on your lawn.

The question is indeed whether they had knowledge that a convicted sex offender was using their site as bait or alternatively whether they had made a promise of background checks and legitimacy of all parties and failed to fulfill that promise . It's a tall order to prove that, if this is a craigslist type site for models, the assumption of risk should at all times remain with all parties involved. If I get murdered or raped because I wanted to buy a $15 lawn mower from CL, why would CL be liable? Do you hold a classic paper liable for the ads that appear? What if a magazine were to advertise a drug that later turned out to be harmful or even fraudulent, would you hold all advertising channels for homeopathic "cures" liable?

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

The liability isn't being created by user-posted content in this case. It stems from the site actually knowing about the actions of some users and failing to give notice when it could foresee that that failure would put other users at risk. It's the same principle that says that if I know of a danger on my property and fail to post notice of it or take steps to keep people out I'm liable if someone gets hurt by it. Section 230 never comes into play.

Actually I would be fine with the concept that all uninvited trespassers are fair game. You may walk from the street/sidewalk to the front door and knock - if you go further than that I have no sympathy for any peril that happens to you. I am aware that the law does not see it this way but in some cases the law is unjust.

To give a more extreme case, the very idea that a home invader could ever sue the homeowner for injuries sustained (such as getting shot) is just plain ridiculous. Home invasions are the sort of thing that should be discouraged by any reasonable means necessary. It's not like the home invader had no idea he was doing something risky.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

The presence of a disclaimer in a legally binding agreement does not necessarily guarantee that the terms of the disclaimer will be recognized and enforced in a legal dispute. There may be other legal considerations that render a disclaimer void either in whole or part.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Your example depends largely on your jurisdiction. Some have successfully allowed thieves to sue because they got injured breaking and entering, others allow you to beat or shoot to death anyone who appears on your lawn.

Gee, I wonder which jurisdictions have lower rates of home invasions? When convicted criminals (burglars) are interviewed there's one thing they all agree on: getting shot by a homeowner is their number one fear. Getting caught is their number two fear.

It's just like the whole gun "debate". I say "debate" because it's only a debate when clear conclusions cannot be drawn from the facts. It's more like an article of religious faith at the altar of political ideology and a general "guns are icky" feeling when clear conclusions can be made and a "debate" persists. States which make it easy to conceal-carry have lower rates of violent crime. Mass shootings overwhelmingly happen in "gun free zones". Chicago, a city where it's nearly impossible to legally own a gun, has tons of shootings.

I could go on and on but the point is clear: criminals who are willing to commit murder aren't afraid of being charged with weapons violations. Law-abiding folks who view criminal charges and jail as something that will ruin their life because they have a lot to lose, those people obey weapons restrictions. Those people tend not to be armed unless it is legal. Criminals don't want a gunfight in which they can easily die, criminals want an easy target. Conceal-carry means anyone is potentially armed so choosing a would-be victim becomes a lot more dangerous. This discourages crimes of opportunity which most robberies and the like are.

Also the hypocrisy is amusing. The politicians who are all anti-gun always have armed guards. Isn't that something? Most people who are anti-gun are okay with police being armed. This is strange because a police officer who shoots someone is almost never charged or held personally accountable. A private citizen who shoots someone can be guaranteed to be investigated and prosecuted if it was unjustified. Yet they're okay to have the parties with the least accountability holding the power of lethal force? This is a strange belief system and you can tell that it's strange because it has difficulty providing simple, clear reasons to justify itself.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Would rape have been prevented by a "Please don't get raped" disclaimer?

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, I wonder which jurisdictions have lower rates of home invasions?

Hard to say, home invasion is not necessarily a term in use everywhere.

There is data but you may consider it suspect.

When convicted criminals (burglars) are interviewed there's one thing they all agree on: getting shot by a homeowner is their number one fear. Getting caught is their number two fear.

Really? Can you post some?

It's just like the whole gun "debate". I say "debate" because it's only a debate when clear conclusions cannot be drawn from the facts.

Facts, as they say, are slippery things, especially when some sides make them up.

It's more like an article of religious faith at the altar of political ideology and a general "guns are icky" feeling when clear conclusions can be made and a "debate" persists. States which make it easy to conceal-carry have lower rates of violent crime. Mass shootings overwhelmingly happen in "gun free zones". Chicago, a city where it's nearly impossible to legally own a gun, has tons of shootings.

Actually, a lot of the pro-gun movement has its own ideology, and it's own "Guns are cool" feeling, because you know what? Crime has dropped across the country, mass shootings are rare incidents that don't really determine the events that concern us, and Chicago has lots of problems, including many revealed in a recent investigation of its police department.

I could go on and on but the point is clear: criminals who are willing to commit murder aren't afraid of being charged with weapons violations. Law-abiding folks who view criminal charges and jail as something that will ruin their life because they have a lot to lose, those people obey weapons restrictions. Those people tend not to be armed unless it is legal. Criminals don't want a gunfight in which they can easily die, criminals want an easy target. Conceal-carry means anyone is potentially armed so choosing a would-be victim becomes a lot more dangerous. This discourages crimes of opportunity which most robberies and the like are.

Despite popular belief, very few homicides are actually by criminals engaged in criminal enterprise. You're more likely to be murdered by somebody who has a relationship to you than a random criminal. FBI statistics.

Also the hypocrisy is amusing. The politicians who are all anti-gun always have armed guards. Isn't that something? Most people who are anti-gun are okay with police being armed.

You mean people draw a distinction between professionals and civilians? So??

This is strange because a police officer who shoots someone is almost never charged or held personally accountable. A private citizen who shoots someone can be guaranteed to be investigated and prosecuted if it was unjustified. Yet they're okay to have the parties with the least accountability holding the power of lethal force? This is a strange belief system and you can tell that it's strange because it has difficulty providing simple, clear reasons to justify itself.

Oh, you want to talk police accountability? Or even private citizen accountability? Sorry, but it's not the pro-gun movement that is doing that, instead they're the ones who are telling us POLICE are the victims of a massive conspiracy, at greater risk, and also pushing for laws to make citizens even less accountable.

But don't let any facts get in your way.

After all, you have your own religious faith to follow, right?

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

The liability isn't being created by user-posted content in this case. It stems from the site actually knowing about the actions of some users

Close. It's about their having heard about two people who had been accused of rape but the charges dismissed.

Re: Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever? What if the person whose home was invaded set up a trap? An ambush?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, just like the signs on the backs of dump trucks that read "Not responsible for damage from falling debris". Guess what, you fail to secure your load, you're almost always liable for the damage from dumping shit on the highway.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Since mass shootings are rare, I guess that takes the wind out of the sails of those who insist on gun control (and magazine restrictions) as a way to curtail such incidents.

Or does that only apply when it fits a certain narrative?

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[murdocj]

Personally, I don't worry about mass shootings, I worry about cases where two people know each other and there's a murder-suicide. The problem is that we are so surrounded by gun violence that the daily occurrence of such cases just doesn't cause a stir anymore. In order to be shocked now it has to be children slaughtered in a school or movie-goers killed at the mall. And then gun idiots use that kind of thing to argue that there should be MORE guns... like we aren't already awash in weaponry. Somehow the idea that anyone can buy and carry an efficient killing machine doesn't make me feel safer.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Yeah, Model Mayhem still isn't doing any background checks or any such things. I just signed up on the site on the "agent" side, and the only requirement to post a shoot was to give them some money.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Liability when a fiduciary duty exists cannot be waived, especially when the website owners have constructive or actual notice that putting models in touch with these guys might reasonably expected to result in the possibility of them getting raped.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Since mass shootings are rare, I guess that takes the wind out of the sails of those who insist on gun control (and magazine restrictions) as a way to curtail such incidents.

Or does that only apply when it fits a certain narrative?

I personally think that the tendency to just react based on a few incidents misses the point. That said, mandatory safety training, background checks for psychiatric history, waiting periods, safe storage requirements and clip size limitations, are all good for preventing numerous sorts of problems.

Stupidity is a big problem with firearms, because apparently you can't even trust a shooting range instructor not to let a 9-year old fire an Uzi.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Hognoxious]

Stupidity is a big problem with firearms, because apparently you can't even trust a shooting range instructor not to let a 9-year old fire an Uzi.

If it's the story I'm thinking of, I doubt he'll repeat his error.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Coren22]

background checks for psychiatric history,

What psychiatric history counts to you? FYI, every single person in the US falls under some section of the DSM, so saying nobody ever diagnosed with a psychiatric condition can buy a gun is really ignorant.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Coren22]

Does the traditional version of the model/agent/photographer arrangement require background checks? Is a background check something that should cause someone to essentially be unemployable?

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Coren22]

So, then there should be no responsability for the site to notify its users as there has been no convictions, and anyone can be accused of something, even if it never occurred.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I doubt it; I would assume it's pretty much a free-for-all. Anyone with a camera can claim to be a "photographer". My comment was in reply to the fact that Model Mayhem has seemingly not yet done anything to mitigate these issues that brought this legal judgment against them; specifically guruevi's comment of "whether they had made a promise of background checks and legitimacy of all parties and failed to fulfill that promise." MM has made no such promise; so therefor technically they didn't "fail to fulfill".

And, many time the answer is yes in the US as to a failed background check causing someone to essentially be unemployable. Is this the correct path? I personally don't think it is, especially if whatever crime that was committed was a singular event, unrelated to new job duties, etc. However, many US corp's HR departments are highly risk adverse and equate "failed background check" with "rampaging murderer" or such.

Re:Not user-posted content at issue here

[Anonymous Coward]

Your failure rate history against apk counts against you Coren22 https://slashdot.org/comments.... , http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , https://slashdot.org/comments.... and you must be a sado masochist for telling those lies and technical blunders galore. It doesn't take a shrink to figure that much out. You did it to yourself.

Treated like financial crimes.

[Sebby]

Do Slashdot readers think there should ever be any exceptions?

If the site(s) knew something, then yes, they should have some accountability. In this regard, it should be treated similarly as someone who had participated/facilitate, unknowingly or not, in money laundering - the law won't care about actual intent/claimed innocence, only about the facts.

Re:Treated like financial crimes.

[PopeRatzo]

If the site(s) knew something, then yes, they should have some accountability. In this regard, it should be treated similarly as someone who had participated/facilitate, unknowingly or not, in money laundering - the law won't care about actual intent/claimed innocence, only about the facts.

That's what's being alleged in this case.

Re:Oh boy

[jedidiah]

> Here come the MRAs crying censorship....... because insanity always works

Well, you seem to think so. You certainly think that your shrill hysterics will discourage people from sticking up for things like equality, due process, and the rule of law.

You should get the kind of regime you seem to pine for. Just leave the rest of us out.

AmiMoJo

[Anonymous Coward]

SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

AmiMoJo is so triggered right now.

If they made money they are liable.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the website made money by the contents users posted, then they also have a liability. Allowing them to profit from the contents, but without any liability will create perverse incentives. There are enough provisions and protections for the websites already. If they did not know about the criminals misusing their site, it is one thing. If they knew about it and kept quiet to make money they are liable.

But where to draw a line between rapists claiming to be photographers posting classified ads to lure people in? Or even simple job posting in your old dead tree newspaper to lure applicants in?

We should draw the line on a case by case basis. Let them sue, let us look at the facts of the case and then decide whether they are culpable or not. Giving them blanket immunity without even looking at the facts of the case is simply wrong.

Re:If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dating sites aren't liable or really any social connection type site, and while I do recognize this is a "business transaction" on the surface....it does draw close to sketchy territory.

Like if these guys raped women they met on linkdin its probably more likely they would have been much more high profile and sinister, this is almost like classified adds level. What model dosn't use an agent, or dosn't know better than going alone to meet strange people for drinks....who drinks a few vodka mixers on a business meeting with some guys claiming to be model photographers that look like 2 bit thugs (look up the dudes photos)?

I'm not giving the company that hosts this info a complete pass, but really, this type of crime would happen with or without the social sites involvement. If it was a newspaper classified add, people wouldnt be calling for the news papers head.... ....and no im not blaming these "helpless, slutty" women...

Re:If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

100% this. Common sense. Can we have some in our leadership please? Thanks.

Re:If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Men always want to make us do things that we don't want to do. Applying that standard means that any web site that posts pictures of a woman is liable for what those men typically, or at least in the vast majority of cases, want to do.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Men are always trying to talk us into doing things we don't want to do.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I've never consented to sex. Every time I've had it has obviously been rape.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Women in tech are typically more educated than average. We know enough to not let some man talk is into doing something we don't want to do.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[NormalVisual]

*People* are always trying to talk us into doing things we don't want to do. Neither sex has an exclusive on this behavior.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

I let a man talk me into doing that once. It was even more horrible of an experience than I thought it was going to be.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Women in tech are typically more educated than average. We know enough to not let some man talk is into doing something we don't want to do.

This. Other than the Indian women, of which there is a great pressure to allow themselves to be raped, none of the women developers or QA I work with have ever had sex. Better education and empowerment leads to less sex.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here. I have never wanted to, but several of those men have forced me to.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I don't know any women in tech that have let some man talk us into doing that. We're all virgins.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you file a police report? Because of you changed your mind afterwards, that was rape.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I would guess that easily 75% of women that work in tech are virgins. Better education leads to less sex.

Re:If they made money they are liable.

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I think they actually make most of their money by charging photographers, agents, etc to post job listings. As far as I can tell, most models are posting for free. There is some "premium membership" for models, which I'm assuming they charge for...but it seems like maybe 1% or less of their members go that route.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Once is same here. I found out why all of my friends are virgins. It was terrible.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Cederic]

Other than the Indian women, of which there is a great pressure to allow themselves to be raped

Sorry, but that is just bullshit. Indian women don't "allow" themselves to be raped.

Get a fucking clue.

Re: If they made money they are liable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do. All of my friends are Indian and all of their families made them get married. The mothers do teach their daughters to allow their husband to have sex with them even though we don't want to.

Re:Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a weird definition of "shrill hysterics"

My understanding is this is a negligence case

[rsilvergun]

The site didn't know exactly who was doing it, but they knew someone was using their service to find victims and intentionally choose not to disclose the fact. The reason the judge let it go through is that there's evidence the company had knowledge of a specific risk and failed to alert the users. That's why common carrier protections didn't cause the case to be thrown out.

Craigslist has the same issue, and as such they display warnings to users when you respond telling you about common scams.

Re:My understanding is this is a negligence case

[Anonymous Coward]

I do wonder what their best action would have been that wouldn't have meant them basically shutting down.

Having a giant "Women who are using this site are getting raped, please don't" isn't exactly an option for staying running. Of course something needed to be done, but what?

In a word, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Used to be the yard stick was whether you filter or not. If you don't filter, then no, you're just passing stuff through; you might put up a notice that you're not touching the content, but that's it. If you do filter, then suddenly you're reponsible for your filtering. Both harm from having let harmful stuff through and from having filtered warnings about dangerous content. This makes "due diligence" filtering, ie you have to make a "honest effort" at filtering to escape culpability really the wrong thing, but it exists. And of course, now that "web sites" take user content and wrap it in their own styling and whatnot, they're already blurring the lines as to what is theirs and what is merely being passed-through. So confusion abounds, and the rules are clearly being made by the morally uptight and the terminally confused.

The local supermarket has a notice board. Should they be liable for any and all content posted on there? I don't think so. I personally don't think we should expect everyone to police everything and failing to do so makes you a worse criminal than whoever made actual harm happen. I do think most of the rules that require bankers to police their customers need to go, for example. Or the endless carding, or.... But what's actually happening is that we get more of these rules as a result of people getting hurt then suing everybody in the vicinity because, well, I don't know why. I do know the effect, though. It's the celebration of victimhood.

Using Vice as a primary source ?

[Crashmarik]

Well I suppose the weekly world news is out of business so no more batboy or doctors resurrect Lincoln stories

http://www.businessinsurance.c...

Anyway there is an article from a source that is actually in the business of informing their readers.

Lavont Flanders Jr. and Emerson Callum were using Model Mayhem to identify targets for a rape scheme, allegedly as early as 2006, according to the ruling. They browsed profiles on Model Mayhem posted by models, contacted potential victims with fake identities posing as talent scouts, and lured the victims to south Florida for bogus modeling auditions, according to the ruling. When a victim arrived, they used a date rape drug to put her in a semicatatonic state, raped her and recorded the activity on videotape for sale and distribution as pornography, according to the ruling.

There's who, what and when, how, why. The firm is in Florida, the model from Brooklyn going to guess the attorney was shopping for the craziest jurisdiction he could find to get this to move forward.

And here is the theory of liability

Jane Doe's claim is different, however,” says the ruling. She does not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as a 'publisher or speaker' of content posted on the Model Mayhem website, or for Internet Brands' failure to remove content posted on the website. Flanders and Callum are not alleged to have posted anything themselves.”

“Instead, Jane Doe attempts to hold Internet Brands liable for failing to warn her about how third parties targeted and lured victims through Model Mayhem” said the ruling.

So three judges in California decided that not telling women that hooking up with strange men through the internet could be dangerous is sufficient to sue for negligence. Why not, we have to tell people plastic bags are not toys and pose a suffocation risk.,

Re:Using Vice as a primary source ?

[Trickster Paean]

It's worse case for Internet Brands than that. One of the allegations of the lawsuit is that Internet Brands knew about these guys, knew enough to warn their users, and actually sued the people they bought ModelMayhem from.

From the opinion: "It is also alleged that Internet Brands sued the Waitts in August 2010 for failing to disclose the potential for civil suits arising from the activities of Flanders and Callum." It's also covered in the businessinsurance article you linked to.

If you know enough to sue who you bought it from, you know enough to warn the people on your site of a specific threat. And you should do so. They sued the original owners because they failed to disclose the potential for civil suits. It's not surprising that they then may be liable for not disclosing the risks to their users.

Re:Using Vice as a primary source ?

[AmiMoJo]

Actually, the Vice article explains it better than your's does:

Critical to understanding this caseâ"â"and what makes it different from, say, someone suing Craigslist after buying a bicycle off a classified ad and getting in a crash while riding itâ"â"is a legal concept called failure to warn. Callum and Flanders were arrested in 2010 for pulling a similar rape scheme with a handful of victims, but the case proved difficult to prosecute, and they were released. Doe is alleging that Model Mayhem, knowing they were on the loose, should have warned users not to fall for similar scams in the future.

The key thing is that Model Mayhem were aware of the arrests (or so she claims, and it seems likely given that the police would almost certainly have contacted them) but didn't issue warnings. I expect it will come out that they decided not to email their users with some extremely negative publicity that might make them leave the site, putting their profit before the model's safety.

Seems Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The site operator had a duty of care. Innocent until proven guilty is correct, failing to disable the account of a rapist or abuser on accusation is not.

The flip side of this is that borderline and sociopathic (ie: nutjob) women with their fake accusations need to be sued for damages - every time!

big whoop

[Anonymous Coward]

Please cite the case where it was decided that the Tos/EULA is a binding legal document.

personal responsibility

[bigtreeman]

These girls went off and did stuff which was inherently risky without personally taking precautions.
Wish I could get a payout for some of the stupid, risky stuff I've done through my lifetime.
Some lawyer told her she can make lots of money suing the web site, so can the lawyer.

Re:personal responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like if you went to a rock concert, paid for an expensive ticket and it turned out there were thugs cruising around, one of whom knocked you out with a sucker punch to the head.

Whose fault would that be? Yours, for going to the concert? Maybe you shouldn't leave home except to go to office and to the supermarket.

Re:personal responsibility

[BronsCon]

Definitely the thug's fault, but common sense should tell you these people are out there and, if you do leave your home, you're going to encounter them eventually. Also, I suppose it depends which concert; I wouldn't expect something like this at, for example, a Nickelback concert, but it wouldn't shock me in the slightest if it happened at a GWAR show.

It's called situational awareness and a surprising percentage of the populace completely lacks it.

Re:personal responsibility

[squiggleslash]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: personal responsibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Going to a rock concert, with hundreds of people, isn't the same as going alone to the private premises of a stranger. I'm not apportioning blame here. I'm just disagreeing with your analogy.

Always the boundary ...

[redelm]

Liberty depends on not causing harm. Either accept reasonable restrictions or get none. Would you rather total strict liability? In this case, the website was willfuly negligent, potentially to the level of depraved indifference.

oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad wasn't /. shut down just because CmdrTaco, Hemos, Jon Katz, and Cowboy Neil raped a few underage boys in the geek compound.

Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a photographer, my fiance is a model who also runs a "watchdog" group about creepy/seedy people in the industry. In one instance, there was a convicted sex offender who other models apart of her group reported on about several instances where he was crossing the line. She reported his model mayhem profile to the site, along with the link to his conviction on a government website; and they treated her like shit, refused to take any action, removed her profile when she complained about how shitty and dense they were being. It wasn't until she publicly blogged about it, with screenshots of the email chain, that they started singing a different tune, and restored her profile and deleted the sex offenders.

This was just last year. Not to mention the mysterious disappearances linked to the model mayhem site a year or two before that. Most models I have worked with have a creepy/rapey vibe story that starts with Model Mayhem. And by all accounts, they do not take any user reporting seriously.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/modeling-networking-site-common-denominator-disappearance-colorado-women-reports-article-1.1278375
http://www.abc17news.com/news/modeling-website-linked-to-disappearances-rape-and-human-trafficking/20037496

Re:Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and I forgot an important detail of the story. Before they acted on it, they threatened her with legal action if she did not take the blog post down. Claiming that posting the messages were in violation of their TOS. When she didn't budge on from their threats, that's when they decided to actually do something.

Re:Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also a photographer, and I've booked probably several hundred models for shoots via Model Mayhem over the past decade or so. While the vast majority of interactions between users go perfectly fine, I've definitely heard some horror stories, and sites like MM have unfortunately been very reluctant to put anything in place to help weed out the bad apples.

Re:Model Mayhem is the worst at dealing with this

[Cederic]

Surely after they've removed her profile she's no longer a user of their site and has no obligation to conform to their TOS?

(leaving aside the idiocy of the TOS in the first place)

How does law work for newspapers?

[Lotana]

What if rapists post a modelling job ad in the local newspaper asking for young females. Would the newspaper be liable to be sued?

I don't believe I ever seen any warnings in the classified sections. Surely this scenario has happened in the past. What is the precedent on those kind of cases?

Re:How does law work for newspapers?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

If the newspaper knew the guy posting the ad was using it to lure victims, they too would be liable.

Let's sue Al gORE and the government

[Anonymous Coward]

They did create the Internet 2.0 and allow for advertising on the interwebs. Before Al Gore made the internet gay we had 80 columns of green goodness on USENET. Now with have 10'000 pages of advertisements on facebook. Someone has to pay. I say it should be Al Gore. Al Gore either caused / allowed / did know or should have known that these girls were likely to be raped on the system HE created. He must be punished. It is the American way.

Bingo!

[King_TJ]

I think this is an interesting situation from a legal standpoint and worth thinking about. But your response makes more sense than anything else I read here.

IMO, there should be an expectation that any web site providing a service for pay would make reasonable efforts not to allow misuse of the site to continue, especially when it's of a criminal nature and injuring your site's own users. When such things happen, they have to be examined on a case by case basis by the legal system. (EG. How much evidence really exists to show the party running the web site was aware of the illegal activities?)

Sites like Craigslist and Facebook are apparently worried that they'll get drug into this too, with some draconian new legislation putting new burdens on them. That would certainly be a bad outcome, but doesn't seem like one that should happen at all here? A free site allowing open access is more of a "common carrier", like the phone company. (Would you arrest people working for your VoIP provider because a criminal transaction took place via a phone call carried over their network?) There's no profit motive for them to "look the other way" about illegal activities done by people paying to post ads, etc.

No I do Not Think Web sites

[JimSadler]

Should we punish Ford because many people have committed serious crimes that involved using a Ford? What bad people do falls upon them and them alone. And that should be equal and across the board for the rich, the beautiful, the ugly and the poor without any distinction. Not to mention that society can be insane in what they believe contributes to crimes or immorality. For example some states made playing saxophones or saxophone music illegal in the 1930 era under the belief that the sultry tones of the saxophone were the tools of Satan designed to make women sexually promiscuous. Imagine the harm allowing silly laws to be on the books can create.

Re:No I do Not Think Web sites

[Anonymous Coward]

The only rational comment here. I wish I could upvote this.

Re:No I do Not Think Web sites

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we punish Ford because many people have committed serious crimes that involved using a Ford?

How about making an analogy that resembles the actual situation?
Yes, Ford would be liable if at their showroom there were robbers posing as salesman, and when taking you on a test drive they assaulted you.
And (this is the key part) Ford knew that these robbers were present at the showroom and withheld that knowledge.

It's not the action of the robbers that makes Ford liable, it is withholding the knowledge during a business transaction that the robbers are present that makes them liable for negligence.

In the case of the ModelMayhem web site, the site claims to act as an agent to connect models and photographers, but the site KNEW that some of the clients were not photographers, but were in fact criminals. But the business chose to conceal that information, and continued to act as an agent to assist criminals with accessing victims.

Rape laws should not exist

[axewolf]

Assault covers it without giving malicious liars power

Re:Rape laws should not exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as your post strongly implies that you don't even actually know what the legal definition of criminal or civil assault is (hint: rape ain't it), perhaps you should actually read up on the law before making yourself look stupid.

Re:Rape laws should not exist

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Which laws should he read up on? In the USA ignorance of the law is not excuse, but in the USA there are so many laws on the books that the best legal minds can not in fact say specifically how many laws actually exist.

If is all about Godel's incompleteness theorem. The the plutocrats in the USA love laws and they have created a system of laws that covers every aspect of our lives from cradle to the grave. So necessarily the laws are inconsistent and contradict themselves. It is just a matter of interpretation that decides the judicial outcome. If it is up to interpretation, there really is not point in having laws.

When you say he should read up on the law, I call bullshit. No-one understands the law. The outcome of a court case is most often decided by which interested party has access to the most money (this is what show pictures of Justice being a blind women holding a gold scale).

I refuse to respect and try to comprehend any legal system that contradicts itself and laws are not even numerable.

Anything is permissible if you have enough money. Everything is illegal if you do not.

Re:Rape laws should not exist

[Anonymous Coward]

The distinction between assault and battery is one of the simplest ones that exists in all common law legal systems and is literally taught on the first day of an introductory criminal procedure class.

The fact that apparently neither you nor the GP can be chuffed to type "legal definition of assault" into Google tells me that neither of you should be making grand pronouncements on how the law should be changed or demanding others provide the definitions for you.

Re:Yeah, right! "Reverberations around the interne

[dryeo]

While Russia and China are big enough to tell the USA to fuck off, New Zealand along with much of the world, isn't and will bend over. See the case of Kim Dotcom.

Use some street smarts first.

[MrKaos]

I think you need to be really careful about putting yourself in a situation where you *can* be harmed, i.e, personal responsibility. There is no excuse for rape, robbery or any sort of violent assault however walking across a busy road while talking on a phone is pretty risky with similar consequence for injury and it's no different from anyone, female or male, taking precautions because you can be harmed through intent or negligence.

If I was alone with a stranger I had never met I certainly would not be accepting an *opened* beverage from them, even at a venue you shouldn't leave your drink unattended where you can drugged then robbed, it's the same thing, i.e Thanks, I'm not really thirsty.

If you were going to a meeting like that where you had to take a change of clothes, isn't it reasonable to take your own water and make sure it doesn't leave your sight so someone can slip something into it? I think telling a friend where you are going, what you are doing, when you expect to return and, asking them to call you if you aren't in contact after certain time is also a good way for someone to have your back, i.e Oh, excuse me, I really need to take this call.

Sure websites could spell this sort of thing out for people however, unless there is some key detail I'm missing, I think it also makes sense to do everything you can not to be a victim of a crime and protect yourself.

Re:Use some street smarts first.

[Cederic]

If I was alone with a stranger I had never met I certainly would not be accepting an *opened* beverage from them, even at a venue you shouldn't leave your drink unattended where you can drugged then robbed, it's the same thing, i.e Thanks, I'm not really thirsty.

Hmm. I accept cups of coffee from complete strangers regularly.

A one-on-one encounter with someone met through the Internet may admittedly be a reasonable justification for a little more caution. Then again, I've had male and female friends met online stay overnight at my house having never stepped into the country beforehand, so maybe I mix in different online communities to others.

Why is it anyones responsibility to warn them now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, it's an affront to god to even suggest that women should not put themselves in risky situations. Warning them about such things is victim blaming, surely.

Please NOTE

[Attila Dimedici]

Please note that all we have here is a judge ruling that they CAN sue, not that the website is liable. All that has happened is that their lawyer made an argument that the judge agrees would be the basis for the website being liable. Now, the lawyer has to prove that the website is indeed liable. Having read the summary and the comments it appears to me that there is a basis for suing the website. Now they have to prove in a court of law that the website knew that it was being used by a rapist to lure victims and chose to take no actions. It appears from some of the comments made here that the website was not only not warning the models but actively trying to silence others who were attempting to warn potential victims (key word in that statement is "appears").

Re:Please NOTE

[Anonymous Coward]

And the website has to hire attorneys to defend them. And divert time and treasure to the defense. In addition to the cost in dollars there is a large opportunity cost as the intellectual capital of the leadership is diverted to defending this lawsuit.

Unless I'm missing something about their actions, this is a huge lose for freedom.

And don't forget, our jury system can be pretty crappy at dealing with liability in torts. To wit: the dow-corning silicone implant debacle, in which the company was bankrupted by liability claims that have been scientifically shown to be bunk. Or more recently, the outrageously massive awards for ovarian cancer supposedly caused by talcum powder. A reasonably common cancer that has an extremely tenuous link to maybe, possibly having something to do with talcum powder use - that would have resulted in an additional half-dozen cases out of thousands each year. Yet they are gonna end up on the hook for all of them, because justice isn't only blind, it is scientifically illiterate.

Re:Please NOTE

[thegarbz]

Please note that all we have here is a judge ruling that they CAN sue, not that the website is liable.

This sounds strange to me. Can someone explain how this works? I thought people just sue and then a judge or jury decide if the defendant is liable. Is this an extra first step in the process?

Re:Please NOTE

[Backshelf]

Yes, it's an "extra" first step when, for instance, one side objects that proper procedures are not being followed. The "pretrial hearings" you may have heard tell of often deal with such matters, so that they can be cleared away before seating a jury for the trial itself. No determination is necessarily made concerning whether or not the case is viable on its merits, that is, the actual facts of the case. The summary of the opinion says, "The panel held that the Communications Decency Act did not bar Jane Doe’s failure to warn claim under California law. The panel concluded that Jane Doe’s negligent failure to warn claim did not seek to hold Internet Brands liable as the “publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1), and therefore the Communications Decency Act did not bar the claim. The panel expressed no opinion on the viability of the failure to warn allegations on the merits." The summary cites the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows an objection on the grounds that the plaintiff failed "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted". In this case, the defendant objected that federal law barred the claim made under California law, but the panel's order rejects that reasoning, and so the case can proceed. IANAL.

Re:Please NOTE

[squiggleslash]

Very often the first stages of a lawsuit go something like this:

Plaintiff: "I am filing this lawsuit against Defendant because they didn't stand on one leg on a Sunday afternoon and should have done."
Defendant: "Throw the case out judge, the Defendant isn't actually describing a real crime."
Judge: "Hmm, but according to the statutes, CFR928.2281 paragraph 82390.12 that is, actually, a real crime. 'A person must stand on one leg on a Sunday afternoon'."
Defendant: "Well, OK, maybe it is, but the plaintiff wasn't harmed by the alleged failure to stand on one leg NOT THAT WE'RE SAYING IT HAPPENED OK?"
Judge: "True, case dismissed due to lack of standing."

(*rimshot*)

This all happens before the Plaintiff gets a chance to prove that the Defendant actually did whatever it is he was alleged to have done.

Re:Please NOTE

[Attila Dimedici]

This is not an "extra" first step in the process. It is standard. In a normal lawsuit there are many pre-trial motions made by the lawyers on both sides. Normally, the judge rules on those motions and the trial proceeds accordingly (or not). In this case, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit because they claimed a federal law prevented them from being held liable as alleged in the lawsuit. Apparently, the trial judge ruled against them and they appealed. The appeals court has now also ruled against them. The ruling is that they can indeed be held liable. Now the case can proceed to determine if they SHOULD be held liable. Having skimmed the information on this case, I agree that the case should move forward. I do not know if they should be held liable, but my inclination is that they should not be. However, the situation is just shy of where I would feel the other way.

Re:Please NOTE

[thegarbz]

Cheers,

And an internet cookie for you for choice of the content :-)

Re:Please NOTE

[Attila Dimedici]

Yes, the system is broken, but that does not mean that this lawsuit should be dismissed. It is clear to me from the information presented that there is a basis for a lawsuit. Now, there may be other reasons why the lawsuit should be thrown out, but the one presented by the website's lawyers in this case is not one of them. The Dow-Corning silicon implant issue was a result of bad science and is a reason for us to be skeptical of "consensus" science (at the time of those lawsuits, the consensus was that when silicon breast implants burst it led to health problems).

What about the road builders?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever build the roads used by the rapists knew or should have know that the roads they were building could be used to enable rapists to commit rapes. Hell, all sorts of crime is enabled by roads. We should strongly consider going after those who built the roads, those who funded them, and those who built the cars used by the criminals to drive on the roads.

Slashdot made me dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

and to top it all up they failed to warn me!

I don't like the world we live in!

Definition of Rape...

[Archfeld]

"For purposes of this page, we use the term rape to mean all crimes of sexual violence, not just those crimes that would qualify as rape under the FBI definition ..."
WTF is that garbage? That is like considering what a used car salesman does to the average person as rape...

previously...
"Rape is the forcible act of penetration of a female vagina by a male penis or foreign object. All other acts are considered sexual assault"

as of 2012 the US federal statue has been changed to reflect...
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/bl...

Note : The definition of consent has been changed in many states as well to include and reflect the lack of ability to give consent and remove any reference to implied consent by the lack of ability to give consent due to incapacitation.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Anonymous Coward]

So being forced to receive oral sex as man doesn't qualify as rape, but as a woman does?

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Anonymous Coward]

of course not.. feminists don't give a shit about men.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[dcollins117]

So being forced to receive oral sex as man doesn't qualify as rape, but as a woman does?

Things you never hear: "Please stop sucking my dick or I'll call the police".
- Loosely paraphrased from George Carlin.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[dbIII]

WTF is that garbage?

It's garbage if they spring it on you without telling you up front what they are talking about.
Also the FBI definition doesn't hold in Canada, Mexico, wherever so spelling out what is being discussed makes sense on the World Wide Web.


It's telling you to do a global replace of many words for that one in your head when you read that web page which sounds pretty simple, direct and upfront to me

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Cederic]

Not in the UK, no. Rape requires penile penetration:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/...

At best it's "Sexual assault", with a maximum 10 years' custody rather than Life (for rape), and an offence range of 'no prison' to 7 years, rather than 4-19 years (for rape).
https://www.sentencingcouncil....

The law itself is sexist, even before you then start adding in the police reluctance to refer women to the CPS, the CPS reluctance to pursue a case against a woman or the discrepancy in sentencing that leads to women getting a lesser punishment for the same crime.

Criminal fucking justice system my arse.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[djinn6]

They have hepatitis and bleeding ulcers in their mouth.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Archfeld]

I'm not sure it is direct, simple or upfront considering the gender variations today. Add in a LGBT in one form or another and things can get quite complicated, let alone if both or more parties involved are not traditional genders. The USA is a codified system of law and requires specific legal definitions of terms for something to be a crime. What people would consider common law is called case law or legal precedence in the USA.
As for Canada and Mexico there is no legal definition of rape, but rather sexual assault covers all of the variations.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[dbIII]

I'm not sure it is direct, simple or upfront

For the purposes of that page it is. For a wider discussion it's not, unless, like with that page, it's mentioned right at the start that all forms of sexual assault are being discussed.


Word redefinition is as annoying as hell - Uber with "ride sharing", even RMS with "free" but declared upfront it's not so bad IMHO, especially in this case where some sexual assaults may be failed rapes and even if not it's a nasty crime.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[drinkypoo]

as of 2012 the US federal statue has been changed to reflect...
"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

That's still a pretty shit definition. What if someone performs oral sex on you without your consent? How is that not rape? And what if someone is pressing their vagina against someone else's face nonconsensually? No penetration is occurring there, but it's still a nonconsensual sexual act. What about jerking someone off without their consent? How is that not rape? And is it not rape to manipulate a woman's vulva sexually as long as you don't actually insert a finger into her vagina? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Archfeld]

Not saying I totally disagree with you but those crimes fall under sexual assault not rape legally speaking. Morally speaking they are all pretty equally FSCK'd up, and deserving of punishment.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Rakarra]

They have hepatitis and bleeding ulcers in their mouth.

I'm pretty sure that's already covered under other laws.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Rakarra]

Add in a LGBT in one form or another and things can get quite complicated, let alone if both or more parties involved are not traditional genders

I think rape is straightforward, regardless of whether a LGBT is involved or whatever the gender.

Re:Definition of Rape...

[Archfeld]

I think maybe the concept of rape is straight forward, but the legal definition is far from it and can be quite complicated given some gender 'confusion', again in the eyes of the law and in court.

Re:Yeah, right! "Reverberations around the interne

[BronsCon]

Likewise, it is up to the legal system in a given jurisdiction whether or not to consider another jurisdiction's ruling, if presented. Yes, that means a judge in Russia or China can consider a California judge's decision, should it be presented. Are they required to? No, and it's not even likely they would; but they could.

Change the language

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's change the language: ... led dozens of children to a pair of rapists in 2011, ... the owners of Model Mayhem knew about the first wave of rapes but failed to ...

Children have less responsibility for their choices but allowing for that, I'm sure no-one will give all the blame to the children.

... allowing women to sue them could create a new "failure to warn" ...

Let's change the language: ... allowing victimsto sue them could create a new "failure to warn" ...

Sooner or later Facebook will become aware of the crimes; via a police investigation at a minimum, and Facebook should welcome police involvement in allegations of a felony. Facebook and others, react to posts of kiddie porn, drug use, or murder on their sites. Why is conspiracy to rape, different?

Re:Change the language

[holophrastic]

...because women are responsible for their own adult decisions, where children are not. Because we have all sorts of tax-paid services to protect children from dangers that they can't possibly understand -- otherwise, they'd be forced to stay at home and with parents 24/7, which is not the kind of society that we want.

But if grown women need to be told to avoid stupid and dangerous decisions, like meeting strange men in their homes all alone, then you're simply asking us to spend more tax dollars on their protection. It's a great thought, but we don't have that many tax dollars. It's that simple. We can't afford such a big police/surveillance/enforcement/legal system.

At some point, a person needs to be responsible for their own reasonable safety. In this case, that point is a grown adult women not taking candy from strangers and not getting into a stranger's car.

Here's let's "change the language" as you like to put it, although I don't understand how changing the language doesn't completely change the conversation in the first place.

"...dozens of grown non-retarded women willingly chose to get into a stranger's car after being offered candy..."

'Enabling' Web Site?

[Anonymous Coward]

- like The Washington Post for several political decisions that led to murder?
- like Forbes Magazine for helping to sell overpriced shares of super cool new startup xzy?
- like BBC for enabling Irak War by persuading the public it was a good thing and simultaneously suppressing the bad parts? .. not sure if "Enabling Anything" should ever be responsible, it's in the end freedom of oppinion ..

A few are enough...

[DrYak]

However, statistics aren't made by finding only the unluckiest people and aggregating those measurements.

On the other hand, you DO NOT need the event to frequent to be problematic.

Most girls I know are more or less well adjusted.
But all it takes as a few bad apples to abuse the system and try to wreck the lives of innocent guys.
These women not only cause problem to guys involved, but also to all the other normal women because the people will get more suspicious about any allegation.
Actually raped girl might fail to report due to being afraid of being accused of lying, or won't be believed after reporting.

(It's not that much different than the situation of girls considering all men to be *assholes* just because they got burned by a psychopath.
It's not that all men are actually that fucked up.
But a lot of damage is done by a small but very noisy group of psychopath tend to consider "The Game" is a bible.
And because of them the girls tend to look with suspicion to *all* men)

"sue" not "win"

[holophrastic]

This just in: solitary women meeting strange men alone in a dark alley are taking a risk.

I was shocked when a female real estate agent met me on an arbitrary street corner of my choosing 100 miles from her home.

Of course they "can" sue the site, you have a legal system that basically allows anyone to sue anyone for anything. That's the beginning of the process. Winning is something totally different.

I'd imagine that the site would need to have actually had some degree of knowledge that the future rape was intentended, or likely, and some form of guarantee that the past rape was a direct cause of the site's use.

Not so simple

[dbIII]

It's not so cut and dried or even the same crime or as simple as aiding criminal activity
By making themselves look as much as possible like a professional modeling agency they deliberately lulled people into a false sense of security.
So more like fraud than trafficking, but still a deliberate action that it's worth getting the courts to sort out.

Dear Users; are you an adult?

[Bruce66423]

If you aren't GO AWAY

If you are an adult, we assume you are capable of intelligence and realise that it is YOUR responsibility to worry about who you may meet via this website.

The fact that we have to include this clause is evidence that our society deserves its status as a bad joke in the rest of the world.

What Am I Missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

What am I missing? Can't anyone sue practicaly anyone? These judges didn't say they would win.

Re:What Am I Missing?

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERYBODY loses, other than the fucking lawyers.

Please jump. Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Suicide is a terrific means other people can use to get out of my way. As well as exposing me to a lot less whining.

By all means, pull the plug. As the quote has it, "We have more."

Courtroom sexism from a judge

[Anonymous Coward]

> Of course, my request for a restraining order was denied by two different judges (I appealed the first); the second even went so far as to say that, since I'm a man, I should be able to defend myself without giving my ex a criminal background.

Wow, sexism in the court room.

You can easily see that there is a long way to go with gender equality.

Re:Courtroom sexism from a judge

[BronsCon]

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

Cool

[Anonymous Coward]

I am so suing the local store for selling knives to thugs in the area

That's just about as American as it gets

[Anonymous Coward]

Throw in a reality TV crew to film the life of this vapid dumb cunt as her court case unfolds and it'll be all the way American.

According to some reports, the "rapists" drove to the location of the crime. Better bring the automotive manufacturers into this too.

If the pictured where copyrighted ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the pictured where copyrighted they would have been removed 10 seconds after the notice arrived. But rape? Nah, not our problem.

Jjuanita Broaddrick

[Anonymous Coward]

But she cannot sue Bill Clinton for rape?

three data points

[almechist]

Three data points, not one. This guy represents three data points. We are looking at the occurrence of false accusations among women. This man is giving us three instances of that, by three different women. He may be unlucky, and certainly has poor choice of women friends, but it's a valid sample. If we knew the total number of women friends he's made over the years, we could then make a real prediction about the overall incidence of false accusation. Granted, even three data points only represents the bare minimum necessary, and as of now we're still missing data, but if he supplies that data it's completely valid statistically to make a prediction, albeit a very crude one.

Re:three data points

[david_thornley]

Let's be precise. This guy has claimed three false rape accusations and one rape. If he were selected at random, this would be alarming, but he wasn't. He's self-selected, which almost invariably leads to bad statistics. Out of a fairly large pool (I don't know how many people read this), he is very possibly the most serious case. I don't know whether he's to be expected, given the pool size, or whether he's an outlier.

I'm not accusing BronsCon of lying or misstating things, but I'm sure that, if we took a larger sample of people claiming false accusations we would have a fair amount of dishonesty, and cases where the accused had had sexual contact with the accusers (unlike BronsCon), and those cases are a lot more ambiguous.

Re:three data points

[BronsCon]

Ah, finally, a level-headed explanation of why my speaking up does not constitute proof (nor did I ever claim it did), without denying the factual accounts I posted. Thank you, sir.

How is that a rape accusation?

[dbIII]

dropped quickly without police involvement

Thus not a rape accusation at all let alone a false one.

So some women insulted you by calling you a rapist? Grow some balls and get over it.


What the fuck is it with these "men's rights" whiners?

Re:How is that a rape accusation?

[BronsCon]

When they are going around and telling my firends and family members I raped them, that is an accusation. It is not, as you said in your other post, a heated argument. Also, I'm not whining, nor am I talking about men's rights; I'm advocating for equality, even if you might not like all that it entails. Those women are lucky they didn't have libel and slander suits thrown at them from all angles. It wasn't worth my time though; none of them had a pot to piss in so I'd never have seen a penny of awarded damages anyway. They got theirs when I stopped helping them pay their bills.

Re:How is that a rape accusation?

[dbIII]

When they are going around and telling my firends and family members I raped them, that is an accusation

No it is not. It's just slander and you are just a whiner pushing an agenda.

Re:How is that a rape accusation?

[BronsCon]

It's both, they're slandering my with an accusation of rape.

Ac-cu-sa-tion
noun a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong.

Nowhere in the definition of accusation does it say police or authorities must be involved.

I should add

[dbIII]

I should add that you do have a point about them being an AC, but asking for offline identification is going a bit far IMHO.

Re:I should add

[onepoint]

No, user history as you and me both have, helps validate views ( positive or negative )

WTF?

[dbIII]

Well... I didn't have to look beyond your Slashdot posting history to see just how politically active you try to be

Geophones, Model T Ford and Nokia are political?
Hello? Anybody in there? Hello?
Give up on the boilerplate fucking insult you've used on someone else and act like a human being instead of a chatbot with an incredibly thin skin.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Geophones, Model T Ford and Nokia are political?

You might need to go back more than 2 days in your posting history.

Give up on the boilerplate fucking insult you've used on someone else

When did I use it on someone else? Eh? Not saying I've never said it before, but clearly not frequently enough to be boilerplate, like your "agenda" and "men's rights" claims, which you use so frequently you've thrown both at me several times in just a handful of comments.

incredibly thin skin

Nah, just don't like being called a liar when I'm very much telling the truth. Not sure why that's so hard for you to understand.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

So you're the guy who lied to imply that there are a lot of rapists who shouldn't be locked up because of huge numbers of false reports and I'm the bad guy for calling you out on it? What's more I need to be threatened with a violent response (that puppy biting back shit).
Good to know how it stands.

Is that really the person you wanted to grow up to be?

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

So you're the guy who lied to imply that there are a lot of rapists who shouldn't be locked up because of huge numbers of false reports

No, actually I never claimed that, I merely pointed out that (as in my case) false accusations do happen.

and I'm the bad guy for calling you out on it?

No, you're the bad guy for making shit up.

What's more I need to be threatened with a violent response (that puppy biting back shit).

Your puppy-kicking was simile but, somehow, my biting back isn't allowed to be?

Good to know how it stands.

Indeed.

Is that really the person you wanted to grow up to be?

You mean not the horror-story you're projecting onto me? Yeah, actually, I'm quite happy having not grown up to be that.

Keep in mind, when people project like that, they're most often projecting themselves.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

The horror story you wrote in a thread about false rape reports to police. If you meant something entirely different to the post above yours you agreed to by saying "This" then you should have written something else should you not?

Instead you've written a huge number of posts whining and now pretending you wrote something other than what you did in something other than the context it was in.

Bad puppy.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

The horror story you wrote in a thread about false rape reports to police.

The factual account I wrote in response to a post about false reports, things generally going unreported, and men being assaulted, you mean? Yes, the false report of harassment is relevant to that. Yes, the false report of rape is relevant to that, even if the police opted to fudge the books a little and not arrest her for it. Yes, my actual domestic abuse and rape are relevant to that. And yes, the accusers who opted to try and get me disowned by friends and family and fired from jobs rather than going to the police do also count; I don't know that neither of them actually went to the police, it's quite likely that they both did, I only know the police never contacted me and I have no criminal record; this could just as well be because they had no evidence to speak of that I had ever even touched (let alone raped) either of them -- and indeed they could not as I'd literally never met one of them in person and never laid as much as a finger on the other.

I'm sure those last two were nothing more than extortionists trying to scam a payday, but that does happen.

If you meant something entirely different to the post above yours you agreed to by saying "This" then you should have written something else should you not?

Ah, but the post above mine, which you clearly didn't even read, was about more than the one thing you are focusing on here. Don't forget, this thread serves as a factual text record of what was written here. Anyone, and indeed yourself (I recommend it, actually), can go back and see that you're full of shit by now.

Instead you've written a huge number of posts whining and now pretending you wrote something other than what you did in something other than the context it was in.

I've written a huge number of posts defending the truths that I wrote about, no whining from me, sir. You've written a huge number of posts whining that I must be lying because you don't like the truth. Sack up, sir. Sack up.

Bad puppy...

... kicker.

Also, it's fucking asinine that you've been unable to reply to a single post with a single post enough times that we now have three distinct branches of this discussion; neigh, we had four but there was at least one branch you were unable to think up a response to. Allow me to remedy that now by replying to all in this one post. Please use good form going forward, assuming you choose to do so, and keep all of your responses to a single post at a time. Likewise, if you could do as I am doing and kindly address all of my points in each post, rather than cherry-picking the ones you think you can attack out of the context of the rest of the post, that would be great.

Remember what I said about giving people credit for generally being able to figure shit out? Yeah, I meant figuring out that you're a blathering fucking idiot who's just whining about not being able to get me to recant my story... because my story is the fucking truth.

You mean if you had read and understood my initial post for what it was, rather than making shit up

I did - I saw through the "enhancement" you applied that has since fallen apart under questioning

Then clearly, no, you did not. There was no enhancement and I implore you to point out how such supposed enhancement as "fallen apart".

the bit where you pretended that slander was equivalent to laying false rape charges especially.

You still fail to see this, and that's okay as introspection can be hard, but that's all in your head. Now that it's been pointed out a few times, though, your continued failure seems to indicate that you're simply not trying.

The way I was raised, if you're right you never back down

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Fuck that's a LOT of whining.
All that whining just because I'm calling you out as a piece of shit for backing up a comment about false rape reports to police but putting up your "enchanced" unlikely letter to penthouse as "proof"?

Sorry, your long post was completely wasted because all the really needs to be addressed is your first one.

Action replay time
AC1:

WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.

AC2:

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think

Broscon:

This. I've had 3 women accuse me of rape

Then your letter to penthouse (yes, it is that unlikely, obviously "jazzed up" and unrealistic don't pretend I meant anything else by calling it that) in support of all those men behind bars falsely accused of rape follows - complete with playing the victim card!

My response to that was very mild but you just had to keep on whining didn't you?



If you can calm down and stop your whining, what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville? Jimmy Saville alone had dozens reported to police in England, Scotland and Wales, handled by what turned out to be nine different police forces in the end - all of which are not looking so false now. It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think, especially since the number of things filed as false accusations is so low in the first place that those celebrities accounted for a major chunk.

Sorry but I have to comment on this bit:

And I know you have this image of me sitting here crying over you, or throwing up fists of rage

Now that's just weird. I caught you out pushing a pretty disgusting agenda by "jazzing up" a story as "proof" and pretending one thing is a different thing but that's all that is going on here. If you get angry about a suggestion of taking responsibility for your own actions then that is your own problem.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Sorry, your long post was completely wasted because all the really needs to be addressed is your first one.

You really should have read the whole thing. I combined all of our split threads, because somehow you can't manage to fucking reply to one post with one post, instead posting multiple sets of random ramblings like a desperate dog (very telling). That'd be why it was so long.

I'm going to do the same thing here, since I have, yet again, 3 desperate replies from you.

AC1:

WTF are you talking about? False rape reports are a tiny percent of rapes reported. And the number of actual rapes not reported is quite high as well.

Irrelevant, I replied to AC2, not AC1. AC2's post was about so much more than you claim; apparently, you don't like reading much past the first line of anything. You should try it sometime, you might learn something. In fact, reading and understanding before replying should be the norm for a teacher; the logic of that should have an especially soft place in the heart of a supposed engineering teacher, at that!

AC2:

It's truly unfortunate and sad but actually there are a whole lot more false rape reports than you might think. It's the kind of thing that tend not to get reported...

... Likewise women engage in domestic violence more often than men do, but you have to research the topic to find this out.

... Likewise, a man who tried to report being assaulted by his wife/partner tends to be viewed as less masculine, attaching a stigma to it. The reality is that a woman who physically abuses her husband won't be instantly arrested and charged on his word alone (like a man would). The abusive woman can be confident that he probably won't defend himself with his superior strength because if he did that, then HE would go to jail.

... Actual equality and accountability under the law would be a positive change.

All points relevant to what I posted.

Then your letter to penthouse (yes, it is that unlikely, obviously "jazzed up" and unrealistic don't pretend I meant anything else by calling it that) in support of all those men behind bars falsely accused of rape follows

In fact, that's not what I was supporting, but do men (and women, for that matter; why do you keep focusing on the men when I very clearly support the rights of women as well?) behind bars for something they did not do not deserve our support? Of course the ones who actually did whatever put them there should rot, but the innocent? Not in my America, friend. Maybe wherever you are in the world, but you can keep it.

complete with playing the victim card!

Yeah, 19, 15, 14, and 13 years ago; not today. The second rape accusation was while I was in a relationship (with the domestic abuser), by someone I talked to online but never actually met. The beating she went on to (attempt to) administer ended up breaking her own arm. I laugh about it today because she really never landed a single blow and she did injure herself a lot; enough so, in fact, that anyone who wasn't in the immediate vicinity thought I was the abusive one, while neighbors knew the truth. And so did the police when there were fresh holes in the walls from where I dodged her attacks, and her fists showed signs of having made those holes, combined with witness statements from neighbors. But, again, that was 14 years ago and I laugh about it today because she really sucked at what she was trying to do; it's the kind of thing that, if I hadn't experienced it myself, I'd think, well... exactly what you think, honestly. It really is something that belongs in a movie.

My response to that was very mild

And misguided.

but you j

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

You really should have read the whole thing

I did, but it was mostly irrelevant.
Serious criminal shit was being discussed here but you put up your trivial little jazzed up anecdote of bad relationship breakups or whatever as "proof" of false rape reports.
Now while your account has you totally passive and stuff just happening to you with no input on your part, as unlikely and unrealistic as a confected letter to penthouse, that does not really matter because your example is so trivial compared with what was being discussed so blame does not matter in any way apart from directly between you and the other parties. It's none of my business. Putting up a storm in a teacup as "proof" to spread doubt about the guilt of convicted rapists, now that's something to take seriously.

Making sense yet?

I'll read the rest of your new post later, hopefully it's not a lot of irrelevant whining like the one a few posts above.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

I've read it all - there seem to be a few quotes there that you have pretended I wrote (about screwing rugs and donald trump - wtf?) and if it was not an error that's really disgusting new low point here, even more so than the creepy attempts to get info on me as ammo for an ad-hom attack or whatever that fishing was about.

I stand by what I've written - I believe you defended mythical wrongly accused rapists by giving multiple examples of "rape accusations" that turned out not to be what the police or anyone else here would call "rape accusations" and played the victim card to boot.
If that was not your intention then what the hell are you trying to do here and what is the point of all that whining and jazzed up storytelling? It doesn't matter to me that stuff "just happened" to you since it turned out in the end to be far more trivial than what is being discussed, but still, why take so much offence when the obvious falsehood was pointed out as such?

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

there seem to be a few quotes there that you have pretended I wrote (about screwing rugs and donald trump - wtf?)

Yeah, sorry about that. The replies were so close in time to yours that I didn't bother looking at who actually wrote them. It seems that AutodidactLabrat hasn't taught himself much and has perhaps been experimented on a bit too much... For reference, here are the posts I was referring to. Again, sorry for attributing those to you in error. Now that you've pointed out my error, I've posted similar replies to the posts directly, so the correct person gets chastised for them.

I stand by what I've written

Look, I appreciate your resolve here. Really, I do, but you truly are in error. I don't expect that you'll believe it; as I said earlier, had it not happened to me, I myself would not believe most of it.

I believe you defended mythical wrongly accused rapists

That is not, and never was, my intent. If you think that's what's happened, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but the fact remains that everything I wrote happened as I wrote it (again, save for the one error in my initial report). Again, I don't expect you to believe it, but I also did not expect you to continue your attacks for as long as you have. Seriously, you must have something better to do, right? I keep replying in defense of myself because what I've written is the truth; I'm really not sure why you haven't moved on by now.

multiple examples of "rape accusations" that turned out not to be what the police or anyone else here would call "rape accusations"

Ahem... The police showed up at my door to investigate one of them; clearly they considered it such. The other two I don't believe were actually reported, but when my friends and family are calling me and screaming at me asking me how I could have "done such a thing" and my boss is calling me into his office talking about how he's "not sure he wants to employ [my] kind", yeah, clearly some accusations were made beyond a mere breakup argument. To boot, the two I'm not sure were reported to the police were women I, in fact, had not dated. There was no breakup to argue over in either of those cases. I figured you'd infer that from my stating that I never laid as much as a finger on one of them, nor even met the other in person, I really didn't think I had to spell it out for you.

and played the victim card to boot.

To be fair, I was drugged and raped, or are you implying that the existence of my penis implies consent? And, if that's the case, what of the fact that she was an adult and I was a minor? Rape, in the eyes of the law, no matter which way you slice it. And the domestic violence? With witnesses and at least one police report. Surely that happened and myself, the Clinton Township Police Department (possible the Macomb County Sheriff, it was 14 years ago and I don't recall), and my neighbors who gave statements aren't all delusional.

If that was not your intention then what the hell are you trying to do here and what is the point of all that whining and jazzed up storytelling?

Simply trying to relay me experience. There has been no whining and I assure you nothing has been jazzed up. I wish your statements here were true, but I did experience what I claim.

It doesn't matter to me that stuff "just happened" to you since it turned out in the end to be far more trivial than what is being discussed

Rape and domestic violence are trivial? You're a fucking piece of work, buddy. My wife commented that you sounded like a rapist a few posts back; now I'm hearing it, too.

but still, why take so much offence when the obvious falsehood

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

but you truly are in error

I'm not the one that compared relationship spats with official rape reports to police which is what was being discussed - so no, I am most definitely not in error here.

Rape and domestic violence are trivial?

Something that is not either is trivial compared with both. Save the faux rightous anger for something else instead of deliberately pretending to be stupid. We both know that you are not that stupid.

OK, trying again:
If you can calm down and stop your whining, what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville? Jimmy Saville alone had dozens reported to police in England, Scotland and Wales, handled by what turned out to be nine different police forces in the end - all of which are not looking so false now. It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think, especially since the number of things filed as false accusations is so low in the first place that those celebrities accounted for a major chunk.
Anything to say?

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Well, no, I trusted the woman who drugged and raped me, and I drank the Kool-Aid (literally) she made

And there was a false report? From what you've written the answer is no isn't it? Shouldn't it be INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS that since this discussion is about FALSE REPORTS that I'm wasn't referring to that when I was writing about FALSE REPORTS?
It's a separate thing. Playing the victim card to back up a DIFFERENT SITUATION and to try to make me look like I'm kicking a puppy is a bit fucking much. Tragic yes, I've given you the benefit of the doubt with that bit all the way and assume you are being truthful with that part, but not related at all so not "proof" that the poster above you was correct about all those false rape claims.

You really lost it at the end there. It was never my intention to get you so angry just to point out how morally bankrupt it is to support this shit about women crying wolf with an example that was not about false rape reports to police at all.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

I'm not the one that compared relationship spats with official rape reports to police

Neither am I, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. Two of the women I was not in a relationship with, but that's a detail you're conveniently ignoring. The other did go to the police, another detail you conveniently ignore.

I am most definitely not in error here.

I keep demonstrating that, in fact, you are.

Something that is not either is trivial compared with both. Save the faux rightous anger for something else instead of deliberately pretending to be stupid. We both know that you are not that stupid.

And what of my actual rape and domestic abuse? Further details you find it convenient to ignore. Again, in error.

If you can calm down and stop your whining

Again, perfectly calm here and certainly not whining. If you hear whining, perhaps have your ears checked.

what do you say about all the "false reports" about Phil Spector, Bill Crosby and Jimmy Saville?

Asked (3 times now) and answered. It's Cosby, by the way, not Crosby. There was a famous Crosby, but his name was Bing. Of course, you're never in error, so I must have that detail wrong.

Nah, man, it's their money, which they use to pay for lawyers. Also, their notoriety and the fact that they're well known and generally liked and trusted. It's hard to accuse someone you like and trust of rape, and it's hard to believe someone else who does.

It kind of makes the false accusation statistics look a little less accurate don't you think

When you cherry-pick rich, famous, and trusted names with money for teams of lawyers and plenty of prior positive public image to clear their names, yeah it does. You remove the celebrities who bought their "innocence" from those statistics (which you conveniently didn't share) and you'll find that the percentage of actual false claims increases.

Anything to say?

Yeah, actually. You suck at picking examples. A handful of celebrities with enough disposable cash on hand to buy their "innocence" does not negate actual false claims that are made.

And no, it does not have to be all, or most, or even many claims which are false in order for it to be a problem. Nor are women the only ones who make false claims (in fact, you've accused me of such a number of times, though incorrectly), nor only men who rape.

Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape (by an adult, as a minor, with the use of drugs) and domestic abuse. Ostensibly, this is because I am male. This makes you part of the problem, not the solution, sir, and it degrades rape and domestic abuse victims everywhere, both male and female.

I suppose ignoring or discounting my own rape makes it easier for you to reconcile your claim that I've argued that all rape claims are false. Again, you are in error, sir; I never argued that as to do so would be to argue against myself.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

And here we go with the desperate double-posting again. You'd think a (presumably) retired educator would know better.

And there was a false report?

No, you dense motherfucker, I WAS FUCKING DRUGGED AND RAPED BY THIS 18 YEAR OLD WOMAN WHEN I WAS 17.

I don't give two fucks and a shit what you were talking about; the post I was replying to when I wrote about it specifically mentioned women assaulting men and rape is a form of assault, making my account relevant.

Pull your head out of your ass (what you think is my whining is actually your own flatulence squeaking out past your neck) pay attention.

and to try to make me look like I'm kicking a puppy

Oh? I'm the one doing that? Really?

I'm the guy kicking the puppy

Your words, not mine.

not "proof" that the poster above you was correct about all those false rape claims

I never intended to prove, only to support. Many (I should say most) proofs require quite a fair bit of proof; I never purported to be proving anything. You, on the other hand, are proving what a pompous fucking ass you are. Repeatedly.

You really lost it at the end there.

Not without cause, I should point out.

It was never my intention to get you so angry

Clearly, it was. It's always the intent of your type, it's the only way you can argue; anger your opponent until they drop the argument and shift entirely to insults. What you didn't bank on is that my argument is based on fact, enabling me to simply pepper the insults (also apparently based on fact) into my argument.

just to point out how morally bankrupt it is to support this shit about women crying wolf with an example that was not about false rape reports to police at all

Except for the one who did. Don't you think it's a bit morally bankrupt to continue deriding me over that after learning that you got your facts wrong (even if it was originally my fault that you did)? Perhaps I'm not owed an apology for your misguided statements before I posted the correction, as it was me who misguided you; but I think one is in order for the continued flow of statements after the correction. Not that I'd accept it at this point, but hey, be the bigger man and all.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

And here we go with the desperate double-posting again

WTF?

You'd think a (presumably) retired educator would know better.

I've been back to being an engineer in the private sector for the last sixteen years instead of the few years I spent in academia when manufacturing collapsed.

Clearly, it was. It's always the intent of your type

What was it you said about projecting? Lose the baggage, you do not know me and I am not that other person you are projecting on me.

after learning that you got your facts wrong

Since the only place I could get them from is you and it turned out that you had exaggerated in the first place, as I suggested, why are you taking that line at all?

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape

Of course I am not addressing it because we are discussing false reports.

I am very annoyed that you keep on pretending that I am addressing it and making a whole lot of statements about me on that basis - it looks very much like hiding behind the victim card and using leverage there to argue about something else while swamping other people with emotional stuff. You have accused me of all kinds of things on the false assumption that I was questioning it.

domestic abuse

Not the topic either.

Actual rapes by celebrities reported as false - that's right on topic about false reports isn't it?

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

I've been back to being an engineer in the private sector for the last sixteen years

Well that's good to hear, always important to keep busy. I seriously think that, under different terms, you and I might actually get along; I tend to get along well with engineering types in general. Always have, since I was knee-high.

Lose the baggage

No baggage here, sir; as I stated, I got over that shit years ago. Doubt I'd be happily married today if I had not.

you do not know me

I know what you've shown me here.

and I am not that other person you are projecting on me

You're displaying a certain kind of activism that disagrees with this statement. I suggest you step back and consider that for a moment, then come back and try again. Shall we start over so you can portray a more accurate image of yourself? I'm willing to wipe the slate and do that if you are.

Since the only place I could get them from is you

I admitted as much and even excused your original stream of comments, up to and until I corrected the error in my original post.

and it turned out that you had exaggerated in the first place

Ehm... that'd be in your head.

why are you taking that line at all?

Perhaps read the entirety of that paragraph?

Speaking of which, you seem to refuse to address my rape

Of course I am not addressing it because we are discussing false reports.

Right, you claim my mention of it in the first place was off topic, though it was specifically discussed in the post I replied to (rape being a type of assault). You're attempting to remove from the discussion a topic which was opened before you or I arrived. Why?

domestic abuse

Not the topic either.

See above.

Actual rapes by celebrities reported as false - that's right on topic about false reports isn't it?

And not disputed, either, despite the cherry-picking.

You misunderstand, the first bit was about others accusing you of something that did not really happen was it not?

Indeed, it appears I did misunderstand. You'll have to forgive, you have been somewhat antagonistic toward me.

Wipe the slate clean and start over with our newfound understanding? I'm more than happy to apologize for the name calling if you're willing to concede that you had me pegged way wrong right out of the gate (and maybe admit that the puppy kicking was on you; a dirty bit of simile that was and, if you get to know me, you'll learn that I do appreciate the dark humor, so I'm not likely to hold that against you if we end up on better terms).

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

you have been somewhat antagonistic toward me

Says the guy who wrote:

you're fucking delusional. Also, quite possibly a serial rapist and abuser, possibly even involving children

My words stand about your dishonesty and your too good to believe story about the three women who cried wolf while you just passively stood by after doing nothing - that story that kept on changing.

I think I know your motives for that but maybe you had a different motive but have not expressed it despite the ridiculous mass of text you've typed in these threads.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Says the guy who wrote:

Turnabout, my friend. Don't pull the trigger if you aren't prepared for return fire. Remember, most would say it's fair play.

And, given that you keep thinking I'm making comparisons I'm not making, and that my story keeps changing when, in reality, I'm simply providing more (and not conflicting, which would be an actual change) details to a post from which they were, for brevity, omitted, yeah, it would seem you're delusional. I'd say that one was fair when the evidence at hand is considered. Also, given how quick you'd been to dismiss rape and domestic abuse up to that point (glad I finally broke you of that), what was one to think? It's not like I went to the police or your employer with it; that, sir, was an example of such an accusation being made between two people during a spat. It was in public, so others may overhear (e.g. read the thread) but that's a bit different than what these women did to me.

Now that you know I know what that looks like, don't you think I'd recognize if that's what it was? Here's a tip: yeah, I would.

What was I supposed to do against those two women, who I'd never touched, who were making those accusations to my friends, family, and employer? Yes, two; the third, I'll remind you, I did have an encounter with (several, actually; but one in particular that actually matters here) and she did go to the police. Those are details that have been repeated (unchanged), though admitted from the original account; again, for brevity and, in the case of the one who went to the police, in error. That happens when you haven't discussed something that happened 13 years ago for the better part of a decade.

Of course, you wouldn't understand that, you seem to think you're infallible. Well, you've got me wrong so clearly that's not the case.

I extended an olive branch, a reasonable man might have taken it. But, then, you've shown no willingness to be reasonable here. How long until you ask me what I think of the "false" rape accusations against celebrities again, so I can copy and paste the same answer I've already given twice? Or claim not to have said something, so I can link to the post where you said it? Your toes must still hurt from that one, the puppy is doing fine, though.

You've got nothing, so you pose the same questions repeatedly, trying to get me to answer differently. You know what? You haven't gotten what you're after, and you won't. Keep trying though; it's been a while since I've had a Slashdot argument run until comments were locked. You've been a form of entertainment, my friend, and you'll continue to be; and I'll continue to sleep at night knowing two things: I'm speaking the truth and the time you're wasting on me is time you're not spending harassing someone else.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Turnabout, my friend. Don't pull the trigger if you aren't prepared for return fire

That sums up every single one of your posts beyond the first.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Turnabout? In response to fact? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

That was no olive branch, that was a fucking slimy trick to get me to admit that I have done wrong by calling you out for your actions.
All that "in your head" stuff was making peace?

You made a big deal about how you were raised - how about sticking to that instead of letting those who raised you down.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

That was no olive branch, that was a fucking slimy trick to get me to admit that I have done wrong by calling you out for your actions.

You want to talk to me about being fucking slimy? I guess, yeah... actually, that makes sense. You'd know plenty about it.

All that "in your head" stuff was making peace?

No, the "in your head" stuff was pointing out that all the shit you're spewing is based on your own fantasy of how things happened, rather than reality. Making peace came at the end of the post.

You made a big deal about how you were raised - how about sticking to that instead of letting those who raised you down.

It seems that you're implying that I should back down, sir. You see, as I'm right, I was raised not to back down in this situation; doing so would indeed be a let down to those who raised me.

Again, I admire your resolve, but I do question how you sleep at night. I'll remind you that I sleep perfectly well, knowing that I'm speaking the truth.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

seems that you're implying that I should back down, sir. You see, as I'm right

Right when you wrote about me "quite possibly a serial rapist and abuser, possibly even involving children"?

You've made my point about "false rape accusations" very clearly. For you the bar appears to be set so low that even somebody that has annoyed you in a trivial online discussion gets to be accused.


Meanwhile the rest of us, including the guy you defended with your "proof", were discussing the incredibly rare accusations that land people in jail for no reason.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

First of all, I never claimed you actually did those things, only that you possibly could have. Even if I had said you actually did those things, according to you, there still would have been no accusation. After all, I didn't go to the police. Hell, I didn't even go to your friends, family, and employer like two of my accusers did to me. Are you now conceding that a face to face accusation of something does, in fact, constitute an accusation?

Furthermore, you're the one calling my accounts "proof".Not only have I never called them "proof", I've actually stared that they're not proof of anything. Hell, they're not even proof these things actually hallened! These things did actually happen, but the proof lies elsewhere.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Furthermore, you're the one calling my accounts "proof".Not only have I never called them "proof"

Now you are not only pretending to be far more stupid than you clearly are but also playing word games. You have not managed to convince me to withdraw my accusation about you pushing the "not many rapists but lots of women crying wolf" agenda by now despite all kinds of petty and annoying tricks so I suggest you just give up.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Really? That's what your argument amounts to? I haven't managed to convince you? I'll remind you, I'm merely defending myself, not trying to convince you; and you're the one playing word games, twisting the definition of "accusation" to whatever fits the agenda you're pushing. Yes, you, sir, are the one pushing an agenda here.

When the fuck did I ever say there are not many rapists, or that lots of women cry wolf? I never did, those are your bitter words stuffed into my mouth and you get indignant when I spit them back in your face.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Still whining?
Have you learned something from this tedious exercise about putting up fake "proof" to defend rapists?

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

I haven't managed to convince you?

Why else would you continue to communicate with me for so long instead of just letting it slide as a difference of opinion? The alternative is a wish to childishly insult, but make up your mind for yourself which it was.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Still whining?

Still not whining, actually. You must be hearing yourself.

Have you learned something from this tedious exercise about putting up fake "proof" to defend rapists?I

Eh, perhaps if that's what I was doing, I'd have learned something about it. So, short answer: no.

Have you learned anything about putting words in people's mouths, reading too much into things, and accusing someone who, himself, as been raped of defending rapists?

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Or, as stated:

I'll remind you, I'm merely defending myself, not trying to convince you

You mustn't be a very good engineer with low enough intelligence to actually have to ask why I would continue communicating with you in the face of your attacks and accusations, when I've literally just told you.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Again with the personal attacks and attempted doxxing. At least it was short and not pages of whining that would not fit without clicking the "read more" link.
You have never answered. If your "enhanced" story and the victim card to try to force it through without criticism was not to support the "they are all crying wolf" agenda then what was it for?

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Attempted doxxing? WTF, mate? Are you high?

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Once again you avoided the question: "If your "enhanced" story and the victim card to try to force it through without criticism was not to support the "they are all crying wolf" agenda then what was it for?"

Trying to get me to write about my career by calling my ability in it into question is a bit of a slimy evasion.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

So what were you doing?
I've got no idea how many times I've asked that but you keep on evading the question.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Once again you avoided the question: "If your "enhanced" story and the victim card to try to force it through without criticism was not to support the "they are all crying wolf" agenda then what was it for?"

Actually, no, the question was:

Why else would you continue to communicate with me for so long instead of just letting it slide as a difference of opinion?

A question, mind you, that I had directly answered in my prior post.

Trying to get me to write about my career by calling my ability in it into question is a bit of a slimy evasion.

I wasn't trying to get you to write about your career, I was pointing out that an engineer (your claim, in this very conversation, not mine) should know how to read and comprehend. You, sir, seem to have trouble doing those two things.

So what were you doing?

I'll assume that, this time, you mean to refer to my original post. I've answered that already; surely, as you're an intelligent guy who knows how to read an comprehend, you're asking only because you are unsatisfied with my answer, to which I can only say: tough shit; my answer is my answer, you an ask every day for the rest of your natural life and it isn't going to change.

I've got no idea how many times I've asked that but you keep on evading the question.

Oh? So you're actually asking because you haven't seen or comprehended my answer by now? Got it. Well, let me recap:

Let's start with this one, in response to your third post in this conversation, before you even asked what my purpose was:

My regaling wasn't for you in the first place; it was in support of others who've been through shit similar to what I've been through, whether male, female, or other.

I clarified my point here, in response to your fifth post, again before you asked:

The fact is, rape, sexual assault and harassment, domestic violence, and false accusations of any of those are all bad things, regardless who they happen to. And they all happen to both genders.

In response to your 11th post where, by the way, you've still not asked the intent of my original post. Still relying on your false assumption of my intent:

speaking truthfully and from the heart about shit people would rather didn't happen

To your 14th post, where you're still assuming incorrectly and have not yet asked the question I supposedly keep evading:

I merely pointed out that (as in my case) false accusations do happen.

In response toyour 18th post, wherein you have still not asked this oh so evaded question:

I simply posted an account of events, in support of a fellow Slashdotter's comment.

In response to your 20th post, by which point I'm still not seeing your question; defending the relevance of my first post:

The factual account I wrote in response to a post about false reports, things generally going unreported, and men being assaulted, you mean?

In response to your 24th post wherein you finally asked the quetion!! By which time, of course, I've already answered it no fewer than four times and clarified the relevance of that post at least once. Yes, I corrected a typo in this quote; it's been marked os you and the rest of the world can see that I'm not hiding it:

Simply trying to relay [my] experience. There has been no whining and I assure you nothing has been jazzed up. I wish your statements here were true, but I did experience what I claim.

In response to your 26th post:

I never intended to prove, only to support.

Another clarification, in response to your 27th post:

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

I'll assume that, this time, you mean to refer to my original post

Yes because your story changed after that.
Why post such a convenient "enhanced" story? Nothing but whining and denials with no answer in sight.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

My story, in fact, did not change. I added details which, for brevity, were left out of the original post, and I corrected a detail I misremembered about an event that occurred 13 years ago; but the story itself did not change. We've been over this already, why are we coming back to it?

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

I added details which

Which changed everything, such as you being a financial support for one person. Even your "victim card" turned out to be about drunken misadventures only classed as a crime due to a higher age of consent than in a lot of other places.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

You put your petty relationship problems (altered to make you look like nothing but a passive participant) up as "proof" that there are a lot of false rape accusations going on. Do you mean you really didn't expect a bit of disbelief, disgust, and sheer wonder that you had the audacity to go so far as to suggest such things were equivalent to the very serious crimes being discussed?
Your action of calling me a rapist just because I annoyed you shows how little you take such things seriously.
It's more than just a little sickening.
This "mens rights" shit is like Afganistan at home.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

Which changed everything, such as you being a financial support for one person.

How does my being financial support for someone I'm not sleeping with have any bearing on whether or not it's acceptable for her to tell my friends, family, and employer I raped her when I did nothing of the sort? It changes nothing.

Even your "victim card" turned out to be about drunken misadventures only classed as a crime due to a higher age of consent than in a lot of other places.

Incorrect. When I said "I drank the Kool-Aid (literally) she made" that's exactly what I meant. We were babysitting my dad's GF's kids at the time, there was no alcohol involved. They had gone to bed by then so, thankfully, they weren't involved, but neither was alcohol, as there was none in the house. She drugged me, as I said, but you go right ahead and believe otherwise, jackass.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

"proof" that there are a lot of false rape accusations going on

You keep saying "proof" and I keep pointing out that I intended to "prove" nothing. You keep saying "a lot" and I keep pointing out that it doesn't take "a lot" for it to be a problem. Why do you keep making these false statements of my claims? Sure, you can tear them down much more easily than what I'm actually claiming, but you're not tearing down my claims when you do that, you're tearing down your own strawman, which you keep rebuilding, over and over. Why?

Do you mean you really didn't expect a bit of disbelief, disgust, and sheer wonder that you had the audacity to go so far as to suggest such things were equivalent to the very serious crimes being discussed?

A false accusation is a false accusation. Slander is a very serious crime, and the false report filed by one woman is, in fact, the very serious crime that was being discussed. The false harassment accusation, which also saw police involvement, is actually the exact same very serious crime. Rape is a very serious crime, as well, especially when the victim was drugged and even moreso when the victim was a minor. Additionally, domestic abuse is a very serious crime. All of these were discussed directly in the post I replied to.

Your action of calling me a rapist just because I annoyed you shows how little you take such things seriously.

I never called you a rapist, I said you might be one; huge difference. Anyone, literally anyone, with sex organs and control over their own actions might be a rapist. The fact that you keep minimizing the actual rape and abuse I experienced and place such a high bar on what actually constitutes rape and accusations thereof all add up to indicators of thought patterns which tend to lead to such behavior. That's what I have to go on, so I don't think it an unreasonable conclusion to draw that you might be a rapist.

It's more than just a little sickening.

Step back and look at your behavior. Yes, it is.

This "mens rights" shit is like Afganistan at home.

Here you go with that shit again. What "men's rights" shit? How many fucking times to I have to tell you? Well... I'm not repeating it again, you can read through our conversation yourself to find it. Jackass.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

You keep saying "proof" and I keep pointing out that I intended to "prove" nothing

You still have not explained why else you would do it mr false equivalence guy.

While your lifestyle may have had you being called a rapist three times (here's a clue kid - that stuff you are pushing as ordinary is pretty fucking rare and unusual - not a lot of people get called rapists in relationship breakups without the police getting involved) the only person that has come close to calling me that in my entire life is you with your disgusting accusation above of "quite possibly a serial rapist and abuser, possibly even involving children" - and now you are trying to backtrack and pretend you never wrote it.
So much for your "upbringing", you really are letting those who raised you down. Nobody on this site has insulted me in that way before and I've been hanging around here as an AC since day one (along with thousands of others so that's not a big deal it's just a lot of elapsed time).

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

Since your other stuff turned out to be false equivalence and you've hid behind that victim card dozens of times (even when it was obvious that I was referring to other stuff), your very unlikely story is getting incredibly hard to believe. Even if it was true you have used it shamelessly as an offtopic distraction, a victim card to try to stop people questioning your other statements. All attempts to discuss things separate from your victim card led to a lot of anger and whining. Sorry kid, it's looking more and more like a petty argument tactic than reality, and I wish you would stop acting like a kid.


It's totally unrelated to whatever sordid goings-on led to what you say was three women calling you a rapist (if they ever really called you that at all), just as your attempted distraction about the violent girl had nothing to do with it unless you are implying that she deserved bad treatment herself.


Accusations such as you describe are incredibly rare. WTF were you doing to get accused THREE times, if that ever happened at all.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

You still have not explained why else you would do it mr false equivalence guy.

Eh? Then you haven't been paying attention. What about the post where I quote myself explaining and clarifying no fewer than 11 times? And the 11 posts I quoted therein?

here's a clue kid - that stuff you are pushing as ordinary is pretty fucking rare and unusual

I never said it was ordinary. You keep insisting I'm claiming it's ordinary, but I've stated several times that I know it is not. It doesn't have to be ordinary to be a problem.

not a lot of people get called rapists in relationship breakups without the police getting involved

And it never happened to me, either; I was never in a relationship with either of the women who didn't go to the police. And the third one, with whom I was, did.

and now you are trying to backtrack and pretend you never wrote it.

I never said I didn't write it, I said you misread it, as you claimed I called you a rapist when, very clearly (in what you just quoted) I did not.

So much for your "upbringing", you really are letting those who raised you down.

How? By standing my ground? Right. It's really not my fault you refuse to read the words I write and take them for what they are. Stop reading so much into shit, you're letting down your profession; an engineer is supposed to see what is in front of them, not what they want what's in front of them to be.

Since your other stuff turned out to be false equivalence

An accusation is an accusation; and the one woman who did go to the police counts as ... what, exactly?

and you've hid behind that victim card dozens of times

It's funny what constitutes hiding nowadays.

your very unlikely story is getting incredibly hard to believe

Still hard for me to believe myself, sometimes, and I was there. This isn't the first (or second) time I've acknowledged that my story is hard to take at face value. You'd think that might be a hint that I don't think it's common, yet you keep saying I think it is. Huh. Funny how you ignore such subtle hints as "it's the kind of thing that, if I hadn't experienced it myself, I'd think, well... exactly what you think, honestly. It really is something that belongs in a movie" and "I don't expect that you'll believe it; as I said earlier, had it not happened to me, I myself would not believe most of it". Wait... those weren't subtle at all, they were actually pretty blunt.

Even if it was true you have used it shamelessly as an offtopic distraction

Yes, rape and domestic abuse are off-topic when replying to a post that explicitly mentions rape and domestic abuse. Do you have a blog I can follow? Your ideas intrigue me.

a victim card to try to stop people questioning your other statements

Except that I've been doing just fine at defending those statements. The only reason I might want you to stop questioning them is because you're flat-out wrong and it's really getting old now; but, if you're right (and I am), don't back down.

All attempts to discuss things separate from your victim card led to a lot of anger and whining.

Frustration, perhaps, but no anger, and certainly no whining. No liar stands behind his words with as much conviction as I have, standing behind my words right here; that should tell you something.

Sorry kid, it's looking more and more like a petty argument tactic than reality, and I wish you would stop acting like a kid.

Sorry, reality is what reality is and this, sir, is reality. I wish it wasn't; nobody should have to experience what I've experienced, but, well... it is what it is.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

What about the post where I quote myself explaining and clarifying no fewer than 11 times

Evasions, distractions, excuses, never an actual answer was there? I have not found one in all that noise

How? By standing my ground?

Obviously not since I obviously wrote that about you suggesting that I am a child rapist. Those who brought you up would be very disappointed in you using something so extreme as a simple insult to someone that has annoyed you in a trivial online discussion wouldn't they?

Exercising poor judgment and naivety in early adulthood, obviously

From your "enhanced" story you were just a passive bystander that was blamed for no reason - hence me rubbing your nose in your fucking "they all cry wolf" evil rapist apologist shit.

they were just unstable sociopaths (as you seem to be)

Sigh. At least that is a step up from you calling me a child rapist. When are you going to stop piling on more shit and apologize for the earlier deadly insult?

As for your victim card story. You keep on going on and on about Kool-aid and the "drank the Kool-aid" Jim Jones meme as if it's important instead of just calling it a drug in a drink. Is that some sort of gullibility test? Newspapers love that sort of stuff and the most trivial Kool-aid drugging or poisoning story would get widely reported due the the Jim Jones connection in people's minds. You keep on trying more and more to make it look like fiction, maybe to make fun of me or something? Since your victim card was not relevant I didn't challenge whether it was real or not - so no - you have not fooled me for a second, I just kept ignoring it as the noise it is instead of calling you out as a possible liar on a side issue. So no, the joke is not on me, I just did not care one way or another if the victim card you were hiding behind to try to avoid criticism for your evil shit was real or not, it was never big enough to hide the "they all cry wolf" shit.

And what started here as, possibly, ignorance or misunderstanding

It's all up there above. You've held up well crafted anecdotes possibly related to your own life as an example of how it's normal for women to cry rape when there was not one.


Then a lot of whining, pretended misunderstanding, personal attacks, a deadly insult and even hiding behind your wife FFS!


Is this really the person you wanted to be?

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

No liar stands behind his words with as much conviction as I have

Prisons are full of many liars who have stood behind their lies with far more conviction than than this thread.
If you really believe that phrase of yours I have quoted then you still have a lot of growing up to do.

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

An accusation is an accusation; and the one woman who did go to the police counts as ... what, exactly?

It counts as something other than what was being discussed and something other than what you defended.

This is a serious issue. A couple of women have been raped and murdered in my street in the last few years and the same will have happened near you, situations where an autopsy shows without doubt that rape happened and nobody can deny it or write it off as "crying wolf" or "into that kind of thing -- different strokes and all that" . Pretending that rape is very rare but false reports are common based on something almost completely unrelated is that word you like - "sociopathic".

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

When are you going to stop piling on more shit and apologize for the earlier deadly insult?

Persistently calling my a liar and an MRA is extremely insulting. I attempted to make amends earlier and you made it clear you wanted no part of it by continuing to insult me. Perhaps I'll stop when you do, but at this point you'll get no apologies from me.

You keep on going on and on about Kool-aid and the "drank the Kool-aid" Jim Jones meme as if it's important instead of just calling it a drug in a drink.

I'm not referencing a meme, it was literal kool-aid, thus why I said "literally". It's an important distinction when you try to twist it into a "dunken mishap", as no alcohol was involved. That said, if a woman can claim rape when a man sleeps with her when she's drunk, even if she drunkenly consents, why does the same not apply to a man? How could you even make that argument (which, I'll remind you, you did make a couple posts ago)? If there is a situation in which a woman's consent doesn't matter, a man's consent should also not matter in that same situation. That's not men's rights, mind you; that's equality.

your victim card was not relevant

If you completely ignore the post I was initially replying to, perhaps. I'm not even going to argue your point in referring to what happened to me as a "victim card" as I see that this is futile and your immature mind (sad at your age) simply won't change.

you have not fooled me for a second

You're doing a good enough job of that yourself. I'm simply relaying the facts of what happened to me, you can keep believing that I'm lying but you need to keep that shit to yourself. Seriously.

to avoid criticism for your evil shit

What evil shit? Speaking the truth about past events in my life? If you want to see some truly evil shit, step back and look at how you're attacking someone for openly and honestly discussing very real, very serious, and, honestly, very embarrassing events from their past. It takes balls to stand up and do what I'm doing; it takes a very evil heart and mind to attack someone who does so.

"they all cry wolf"

Oh, fucking bloody hell, this again? You're the only one who's claimed that here. It's getting really fucking old at this point.

It's all up there above.

Yes, it is.

You've held up well crafted anecdotes possibly related to your own life

E.g. facts relating to actual events.

as an example of how it's normal for women to cry rape when there was not one.

Fucking hell, I never claimed that. I've stated, bluntly, several times, that I do not think this. It doesn't have to be common (e.g. normal) to be a problem. Take cancer as an example; not all that common, but definitely a problem.

Then a lot of whining

From you.

pretended misunderstanding

You're blatantly ignoring words that I'm saying which are literally the opposite of what you're claiming them to be. You're either misunderstanding or outright lying with malicious intent.

personal attacks

From both sides, mind you. Don't play all high and mighty, here.

a deadly insult

Yes, one from me and several, persistently repeated, from you.

and even hiding behind your wife FFS!

No, she actually called you a cunt; I only relayed it because I don't disagree. What I didn't say earlier is that it was she who first planted the idea of you as a rapist. I wrote it off at first, but your quick dismissal of rape and rape accusations lead me to consider it more seriously.

Is this really the person you wanted to be?

One who speaks t

Re:WTF?

[dbIII]

It doesn't have to be common

Yet that is exactly what you were suggesting it is. It's all there way above. You are backtracking now, but it would be better to just admit it instead of pretending you did not, endless whining, getting other people offline involved, accusing me of being a rapist and telling me you wished I was dead. I suppose that honest wish is a step forward from the passive-agressive "friend" shit you picked up from somewhere like a bad disease.

Oh, I get it, because I'm male

A different victim card - how pathetic. That's the sort of men's rights shit I'm complaining about. I'm old enough to have been involved with IT when there were a lot of women in the field. It's little self-entitled shits like you that drove them out.

Re:WTF?

[BronsCon]

You are backtracking now

No, you've just been reading too much into my words since the very start.

That's the sort of men's rights shit I'm complaining about.

No, it's an equal rights statement. A woman made a false report to the police and you are saying it doesn't count as a false report. I'd like to know why. Instead of clarifying your point, you choose to spew vitriol. If I had to guess, it's because you actually can't qualify your own statement.

I'd expect, if I'd made a false report to the police against a woman, I'd be held accountable for that; the same should apply in the opposite direction in a just world where the genders are equal. You want to see men's rights shit go watch some of Thunderf00t's videos on Youtube. I watch them and laugh at both his arguments and the arguments he's attempting to counter; both sides are off-the-walls fucking loony.

I'm old enough to have been involved with IT when there were a lot of women in the field.

Good for you. My biggest client is a woman and most of her employees are women; from where I sit there are still a lot of women in tech.

It's little self-entitled shits like you that drove them out.

See above. Allow me too elaborate, she's a doctor who quit medicine to start a software company, probably one of the most intelligent people I know. Of course, I'm such a horrible woman-hating piece of scum that this can't possibly be true. Right? Don't care if you believe it or not, the checks I cash every month have her name on them and we spend an hour or so -- unbilled -- every month discussing these kinds of issues just for kicks; that's real enough for me.

If you were truthful it would be different

[dbIII]

I can assure you that me standing up and truthfully speaking about my experiences has nothing to do with it.

Only you inflated it into something other than truth to push an agenda about large numbers of rapists being falsely accused.
If you were truthful you wouldn't have got my mild rebuke and if you hadn't kept digging this thread would not be here.

Re:If you were truthful it would be different

[BronsCon]

Only you inflated it into something other than truth to push an agenda about large numbers of rapists being falsely accused.

No, I spoke of my own experience. I never extrapolated that into anything more; if that happened anywhere, it was in your own head.

If you were truthful you wouldn't have got my mild rebuke and if you hadn't kept digging this thread would not be here.

You mean if you had read and understood my initial post for what it was, rather than making shit up. Notice how you're the only one still on my case about it.

Here's the thing: The way I was raised, if you're right you never back down and if you're wrong you never open your mouth in the first place. I'm not backing down.

Re:If you were truthful it would be different

[dbIII]

You mean if you had read and understood my initial post for what it was, rather than making shit up

I did - I saw through the "enhancement" you applied that has since fallen apart under questioning - the bit where you pretended that slander was equivalent to laying false rape charges especially.

The way I was raised, if you're right you never back down

But you were not right were you? Things in your original unlikely letter to penthouse style post above didn't turn out to be true di they?

Let's spell it out shall we

[dbIII]

attacking someone for posting about some bad shit in their past

Attacking someone for LYING about some bad shit in their past to push a very nasty "they all cry wolf" agenda and then hiding behind rightous indignation when mildly rebuked.

Re:Let's spell it out shall we

[BronsCon]

Attacking someone for LYING about some bad shit in their past

And that would be all fine and well if I were lying.

to push a very nasty "they all cry wolf" agenda

Amusing. I never claimed that. That, my friend, is all in your own head.

and then hiding behind rightous indignation when mildly rebuked.

Who's the one hiding? Not me, sir. My name is attached to this account in more ways than one. Where are you, sir?

Re:Let's spell it out shall we

[dbIII]

And that would be all fine and well if I were lying.

Indeed, which is why I took you to task.
Pretending that heated words associated with a breakup or whatever are equivalent to staring at bars wondering about making bail is a bit much IMHO.
Hiding behind the shield anecdote of that unrelated event that apparently happened to you when you were 17 just so that you can rail at a critic as being insensitive (as indeed I am - I do not give a shit since it has nothing to do with the "so many women are crying wolf" shit you are pushing), is a different story.


Either way the implication that a large number of rapists are only behind bars because women were liars is more than just a little bit sociopathic and not just something to leave unchallenged to poison the kiddies.

Sorry about the third post, but

[dbIII]

If as you say I am wrong about your motives for posting the bit about false accusations and the SEPARATE bit about the real thing happening to you that I have NEVER QUESTIONED (just not that it is a universal excuse for saying whatever you like about the false stuff - ,i.e. victim card), then what exactly was the point?
Do you really think a lot of convicted rapists have been falsely accused or do you have some other reason, and what is it?

Re:Sorry about the third post, but

[BronsCon]

A third desperate repeat-post? Naughty devil, you.

and the SEPARATE bit about the real thing happening to you

It was all real, friend.

Do you really think a lot of convicted rapists have been falsely accused

I don't know that I'd say a lot, no. I'll just copy and paste from my other post since it's a point I've already made:

And no, it does not have to be all, or most, or even many claims which are false in order for it to be a problem. Nor are women the only ones who make false claims (in fact, you've accused me of such a number of times, though incorrectly), nor only men who rape.

Any false accusation (of anything, really, not just rape) undermines those who've actually experienced these violent and traumatic crimes. You can't honestly believe that I would, on one hand, have been raped and, on the other hand, want to set rapists free, can you? Reconcile that thought process and figure it out already.

Oh, and stop with the multiple-posting already. It's massively douchey and waters down your argument, which is pretty weak to begin with.

Re:Sorry about the third post, but

[dbIII]

It was all real, friend.

You misunderstand, the first bit was about others accusing you of something that did not really happen was it not?