Harvard university police declare that 18% of reported rapes are false or baseless

[Derec]

So, it means someone who prefers expelling innocent students to not expelling guilty ones
and someone who wants to reduce the burden of proof
and wants to expand the definition of rape and sexual assault to include non-consensual sex and consensual sex.
All of those things together, or any one of them separately? Because if it's all of them together, then I doubt you'll ever meet a real one.

The first logically follows from the other two. Reducing burden of proof (like the Obama-Biden decree) reduces the change of false negatives but increases the chance of false positives (innocent students being expelled).
Same thing for expanding the definition of "sexual assault". If you are in favor of expelling students who have not committed actual sexual assault because your definition of "sexual assault" includes perfectly consensual things you favor expelling innocent students.

That's a new twist. I thought your argument rested on them already having a relationship when they had sex, so that made the surprise anal okay. You know, flirtatious text messages, consensual vaginal sex, all of that relationship stuff you were highlighting a couple of months ago. Now you're saying they didn't have a relationship and he didn't want to start one, but he still thought it would be okay to anally penetrate her without even so much as a dab of lube?

They had a sexual relationship in that they had hooked up. She wanted a romantic relationship and, getting rebuffed, went into full-on "hell hath no fury" mode. I do not know where you get the "surprise anal" or lack of lube from, but it is clear from their text messages that anal was her idea, not his.

 

[Derec]

So perhaps this would be a good move for the colleges too, especially since they do not want to deal with due process anyway. If someone is accused of rape, the college should simply get rid of everyone involved including the alleged victim.

They are not going to do that. Expelling an innocent male student is politically correct, but expelling a female accuser isn't. Hell, colleges aren't even expelling female accusers when it is proven they were lying. UVA didn't even expel Jackie Coakley, regardless of how blatantly false her lies were. They are definitely not going to expel a female accuser just because she made an accusation. But they are increasingly doing one half of your suggestion - expelling male students without any real evidence and even when exculpatory evidence is offered.

 

[Derec]

Lying sluts have no sexual rights.

More like - the lying slut is lying about her sexual rights being violated. In reality, it was her who was obsessed with being fucked in her "lopsided ass" while he was ambivalent about the idea.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you not read the quote?? This scumbag explicitly said he would prefer to expel multiple innocents to get one guilty one out. And he got applause rather than rotten tomatoes for saying it.

Yes, I read the quote. And I reject his way of thinking. Haven't I made that clear over the years? Didn't we just discuss this sort of jackboot attitude in the thread about Ahmed Mohamed being taken out of school in handcuffs, with posters who prefer to have innocent students arrested rather than have one possible prankster get away with thinking about pulling a prank?

Just in case there is any doubt let me make it clear:

I reject the very idea of pre-emptive punishments, or punishing the innocent so that the guilty might not escape punishment. This applies to colleges and universities, Wal Mart stores, high schools, all of Texas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and everywhere else governed by our system of laws.

I am interested in fairness and a thoughtful, measured, reasonable approach to addressing problems, not a mindless enforcement of needlessly harsh and/or ill-considered rules. If, however, I feel the rules are reasonable and the process of enforcing them is fair, then I will support both the rules and the process. There's almost 320 million of us in this country, and the only way we can all get along and function as a peaceful society is if we have good rules, and good means of enforcing them.

I asked you to define 'campus rape crusader' because if people don't have a clear idea of what the term means, then it's near useless in a discussion. You might as well call those folks squeehaws. No one's really sure what it takes to be a squeehaw, so no one knows who should be called one.

So what is a 'campus rape crusader'? Can you define the term so that it's useful?

This is not consistent with your always assuming the allegations are true.

 

[Arctish]

So, it means someone who prefers expelling innocent students to not expelling guilty ones

and someone who wants to reduce the burden of proof

and wants to expand the definition of rape and sexual assault to include non-consensual sex and consensual sex.

All of those things together, or any one of them separately? Because if it's all of them together, then I doubt you'll ever meet a real one.

The first logically follows from the other two. Reducing burden of proof (like the Obama-Biden decree) reduces the change of false negatives but increases the chance of false positives (innocent students being expelled).
Same thing for expanding the definition of "sexual assault". If you are in favor of expelling students who have not committed actual sexual assault because your definition of "sexual assault" includes perfectly consensual things you favor expelling innocent students.

No, they don't follow at all. Those are three separate positions, and they conflict with each other.

Believing that punishing innocents is preferable to letting the guilty go free is a mode of thinking that can crop up in any group, but it tends to be concentrated in right wing, law and order types, and in people who think there are simple solutions to complex problems like the intersection of public safety and personal liberty. It's not a widespread belief among those seeking to address the problem of sexual assaults on campus although it has been proposed by some people on both sides of the issue, such as the congressman quoted in this thread, and certain posters who have advocated for expelling females for being unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they were raped.

Reducing the burden of proof might have the consequence of increasing wrongful punishments, but that isn't necessarily the goal of people proposing it. And in the case of disciplinary boards, the burden of proof isn't actually being reduced. The Dear College letter correctly pointed out that in civil matters such as college disciplinary hearings, 'preponderance of evidence' is the appropriate standard as established by law, not 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt', which is used in criminal trials. I don't know of anyone proposing to reduce 'preponderance of evidence' to something less.

As for the third position, wanting to expand the definition of rape and sexual assault to include non-consensual sex and consensual sex has nothing to do with punishing innocents or lowering burdens of proof. It has to do with changing sexual mores, and wanting the law to reflect where modern society believes boundaries on sexual behavior should be set. A person can be strongly in favor of changing the definition of rape to include any form of sexual contact without prior consent while at the same time be strongly in favor of having 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' be the standard for judging such things, and is adamantly opposed to expelling innocent students even if it means the guilty remain on campus.

That's a new twist. I thought your argument rested on them already having a relationship when they had sex, so that made the surprise anal okay. You know, flirtatious text messages, consensual vaginal sex, all of that relationship stuff you were highlighting a couple of months ago. Now you're saying they didn't have a relationship and he didn't want to start one, but he still thought it would be okay to anally penetrate her without even so much as a dab of lube?

They had a sexual relationship in that they had hooked up. She wanted a romantic relationship and, getting rebuffed, went into full-on "hell hath no fury" mode. I do not know where you get the "surprise anal" or lack of lube from, but it is clear from their text messages that anal was her idea, not his.

You and I discussed this before. You know you can't put those texts into context. You know you can't tell if they were sent before or after the night in question, when the two were having vaginal sex when he flipped her over and anally penetrated her without warning, preparation, or adequate lubrication. Neither of us can prove or disprove she said "no, no!" repeatedly, although I can believe it whereas apparently you can't, or think it doesn't matter.

BTW, that bullshit about her going into hell-hath-no-fury mode because she wasn't content with a mere sexual relationship is trite, and contrary to known facts you yourself have posted, so don't try running with it. The eventual charges brought against him were the result of a chance meeting of women who said they were assaulted by him, not because he wouldn't bring one of them flowers.

 

[Arctish]

Lying sluts have no sexual rights.

More like - the lying slut is lying about her sexual rights being violated. In reality, it was her who was obsessed with being fucked in her "lopsided ass" while he was ambivalent about the idea.

Welp, if there's one thing this thread needs, it's more homemade bullshit.

Keep it coming, Derec, so the next time you bring up the subject we'll all know not to believe a single word you say.

 

[Arctish]

Yes, I read the quote. And I reject his way of thinking. Haven't I made that clear over the years? Didn't we just discuss this sort of jackboot attitude in the thread about Ahmed Mohamed being taken out of school in handcuffs, with posters who prefer to have innocent students arrested rather than have one possible prankster get away with thinking about pulling a prank?

Just in case there is any doubt let me make it clear:

I reject the very idea of pre-emptive punishments, or punishing the innocent so that the guilty might not escape punishment. This applies to colleges and universities, Wal Mart stores, high schools, all of Texas, Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and everywhere else governed by our system of laws.

I am interested in fairness and a thoughtful, measured, reasonable approach to addressing problems, not a mindless enforcement of needlessly harsh and/or ill-considered rules. If, however, I feel the rules are reasonable and the process of enforcing them is fair, then I will support both the rules and the process. There's almost 320 million of us in this country, and the only way we can all get along and function as a peaceful society is if we have good rules, and good means of enforcing them.

I asked you to define 'campus rape crusader' because if people don't have a clear idea of what the term means, then it's near useless in a discussion. You might as well call those folks squeehaws. No one's really sure what it takes to be a squeehaw, so no one knows who should be called one.

So what is a 'campus rape crusader'? Can you define the term so that it's useful?

This is not consistent with your always assuming the allegations are true.

I don't always assume the allegations are true. Usually I try to find the source of a claim and check it out for myself, to see if it's adequately supported or not. For example, in this thread I found and read the original report, to see if the OP was accurately reporting the facts. That's why I knew where to find the definition of 'unsupported' the authors were using.

Sometimes I discuss the ramifications if an allegation turns out to be true. And sometimes I believe it's true right off the bat due to prior knowledge of the situation or because of personal experience in similar situations. But I try to be conscientious about saying when I'm offering my opinion vs. when I'm talking about facts.

 

[Arctish]

Correction: post #125 should read Dear Colleague, not Dear College, and post #127 should read 'unfounded' not 'unsupported'.

 

[laughing dog]

This is not consistent with your always assuming the allegations are true.

Nice evasion. Still waiting for your definition of a "campus rape crusader".