Isthattrue? (Something to think about.) Even if what you say is true, that says nothing about these specific individuals. Unless you prove that someone is right in this specific case, I'd hold off on the accusations. To me, the individuals matter more than the statistics to begin with, so I'll refrain from calling her a liar, and I'll refrain from calling him a rapist.
You're not trying to be neutral - you're deliberately ignoring evidence presented by the woman making the allegations in an apparent attempt to preserve your foolish idea that she must have done something to deserve it.
No, that's not what is happening at all, and I said no such thing.
instead of you having to bend over backwards in imagining how it MAY have happened in a way that makes her story false?
I've done no such thing. Certainly, people have listed some alternate possibilities, but that doesn't imply whatever nonsense you're dreaming up. It is your own delusion that people who admit that they weren't there and don't know any of the people who were somehow want her to be wrong.
Neutrality does not require you to invent increasingly implausible alternate realities
I invented nothing.
People like you who claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of 'rape supporter' or some other such nonsense aren't helping to further the discussion at all. I can only hope that you're just a troll. Regardless, I'm going to move on.
Seriously? I simply pointed out that there are very few people who truly know everything that happened, and there's almost certainly no one here who does.
As for the mistake mentioned in the comment you just replied to, it is the fact that I used the word "would" instead of "what."
But given that this is Slashdot, I understand that you're retardedly skeptical of her story.
I'm actually trying to be neutral. I don't care for all this emotional nonsense where people assume one person is lying because of circumstantial evidence (or other reasons). I wasn't there, and I have no idea what happened.
I'd say it's a good bet that he DID attempt to rape her.
But that's just it... I don't really care what you think is a "good bet"; that, to me, is not good enough.
A reasonable person would draw the conclusion that he must have injured her
A reasonable person would conclude the opposite. See how easy it is to say what an imaginary 'reasonable' person would conclude? I see no reason to say anything other than, "I don't know what happened."
Just the nature of things. I tend to believe the woman.
Why? That might seem nice... unless you get falsely accused. Then it wouldn't seem so nice when other people assume that you did it, as that can destroy lives. I have no idea if what she said is true or not, but that's not the point.
Of... what? Even if everything went down as you said (that he was in her room, had some of her stuff, and now they're both injured), that doesn't mean he attempted to rape her.
Not "everyone" thinks this is bad, but everyone with even a little bit of knowledge about history knows that giving the government such powers so they can catch the scary bogeyman will inevitably result in the government abusing said powers. Everyone else... well, they're under the delusion that government workers are perfect beings, apparently.
(And note that just because you consider it unreasonable doesn't mean that the law does.)
Oh, I'm well aware of that. If the government had a bit of intelligence and some morals, they wouldn't be groping people at airports or collecting the metadata of millions of Americans.
It's not inconsistent unless you fail to understand their motivations, or at least attempt to.
I'm actually well-aware that they're likely all self-serving imbeciles, but most of them would probably refrain from stating their actual motivations in public.
That's not really a good enough answer, especially when we're talking about people with actual motivation. The guy was acting every bit as arrogant as the person he replied to (who he likely thought was arrogant).
Slashdot Mirror
Aren't they?
it is about what a court would define by applying a reasonable man test.
I was already well aware of that. The fact that some courts use it as a test does not make it any less subjective.
I could slurp your snap anytime.
Is that true? (Something to think about.) Even if what you say is true, that says nothing about these specific individuals. Unless you prove that someone is right in this specific case, I'd hold off on the accusations. To me, the individuals matter more than the statistics to begin with, so I'll refrain from calling her a liar, and I'll refrain from calling him a rapist.
You're not trying to be neutral - you're deliberately ignoring evidence presented by the woman making the allegations in an apparent attempt to preserve your foolish idea that she must have done something to deserve it.
No, that's not what is happening at all, and I said no such thing.
instead of you having to bend over backwards in imagining how it MAY have happened in a way that makes her story false?
I've done no such thing. Certainly, people have listed some alternate possibilities, but that doesn't imply whatever nonsense you're dreaming up. It is your own delusion that people who admit that they weren't there and don't know any of the people who were somehow want her to be wrong.
Neutrality does not require you to invent increasingly implausible alternate realities
I invented nothing.
People like you who claim that anyone who disagrees with you must be some sort of 'rape supporter' or some other such nonsense aren't helping to further the discussion at all. I can only hope that you're just a troll. Regardless, I'm going to move on.
and you've refused to clarify.
Seriously? I simply pointed out that there are very few people who truly know everything that happened, and there's almost certainly no one here who does.
As for the mistake mentioned in the comment you just replied to, it is the fact that I used the word "would" instead of "what."
Thanks to a certain mistake in that comment, I suspect you'll be incapable of reading it.
No, you're just being a pedantic asshole. Anyone with a brain could decipher would I actually meant.
That you're being pedantic.
Yeah, that's it. That's exactly what I was asserting.
Let me refresh your memory:
No need. I also did not imply that there shouldn't be an investigation or a trial.
Actually, that's the ONLY relevant point here.
Stop. I meant that the point of my post was not to take a side one way or the other, but to point out that assuming he did it isn't exactly fair.
But given that this is Slashdot, I understand that you're retardedly skeptical of her story.
I'm actually trying to be neutral. I don't care for all this emotional nonsense where people assume one person is lying because of circumstantial evidence (or other reasons). I wasn't there, and I have no idea what happened.
I'd say it's a good bet that he DID attempt to rape her.
But that's just it... I don't really care what you think is a "good bet"; that, to me, is not good enough.
That, is unless you are hell bent on letting this presumed rapist go scott-free.
Nothing I've said comes close to even implying that I want a rapist (if one even exists) to go free.
A reasonable person would draw the conclusion that he must have injured her
A reasonable person would conclude the opposite. See how easy it is to say what an imaginary 'reasonable' person would conclude? I see no reason to say anything other than, "I don't know what happened."
this man was trying to kill her.
Supposedly, something like that went down. In reality, no one knows what truly happened.
Just the nature of things. I tend to believe the woman.
Why? That might seem nice... unless you get falsely accused. Then it wouldn't seem so nice when other people assume that you did it, as that can destroy lives. I have no idea if what she said is true or not, but that's not the point.
Strong circumstantial evidence.
Of... what? Even if everything went down as you said (that he was in her room, had some of her stuff, and now they're both injured), that doesn't mean he attempted to rape her.
Of course its susceptible to abuse, but killing the Golden Goose just because it lays a few bad eggs is foolish.
Freedom is more important than safety; far more important. I'd rather not have this system at all if they're going to collect all this data.
Why does everyone think this is bad
Not "everyone" thinks this is bad, but everyone with even a little bit of knowledge about history knows that giving the government such powers so they can catch the scary bogeyman will inevitably result in the government abusing said powers. Everyone else... well, they're under the delusion that government workers are perfect beings, apparently.
(And note that just because you consider it unreasonable doesn't mean that the law does.)
Oh, I'm well aware of that. If the government had a bit of intelligence and some morals, they wouldn't be groping people at airports or collecting the metadata of millions of Americans.
Well done. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I voted for the lesser of two evils, but I'm almost certain I'd feel rather awful.
It's not inconsistent unless you fail to understand their motivations, or at least attempt to.
I'm actually well-aware that they're likely all self-serving imbeciles, but most of them would probably refrain from stating their actual motivations in public.
If the NSA Prism system is so powerful and intrusive why does the NSA have to ask 3rd party telcos and Internet providers for the data?
The fact that they're even being given the data at all is disgusting.
The existence of the system was outed over 11 years ago so by the original designer.
Anything that gets people talking about this injustice is fine with me.
It's simply human nature.
That's not really a good enough answer, especially when we're talking about people with actual motivation. The guy was acting every bit as arrogant as the person he replied to (who he likely thought was arrogant).