Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Emily Lake]

That's entirely possible. I hadn't thought of a dog. He'd seen tigers at the zoo but I'm relatively certain he had never seen a mastiff, much less a brindle mastiff or other large dog. Now, I'm not sure whether to mention that as a possibility and ruin a childhood memory.

Oh I say let him keep the memory unruined. That's part of the magic of childhood and growth. As an adult, he'll look back and think that it couldn't possibly have been a real tiger... but there'll always be that little bit of curiosity about what it actually was

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

There are people who would vote against him if they believe he committed sexual assault, and there are those who would not (e. g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...734be8-8997-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html )

One thing that might matter in the election (or not, depending on whether other factors are sufficient to determine the outcome) is how many of those in the former category believe that he committed sexual assault.

As for Trump, the accusations against him surely do affect how some people vote (among those who believe them, in particular), though not all people of course. Whether that's enough may well depend on the circumstances. It was not enough in 2016, but if the election is otherwise closer (and the virus is a wild card), who knows.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

Sadly, I agree. I think that some women (a minority view I hope) find such behavior as roguish. I continue to be amazed that more white women voted for Trump than HRC.

 

[Toni]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

Sadly, I agree. I think that some women (a minority view I hope) find such behavior as roguish. I continue to be amazed that more white women voted for Trump than HRC.

I don't care what the polls say, I don't believe that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

Sadly, I agree. I think that some women (a minority view I hope) find such behavior as roguish. I continue to be amazed that more white women voted for Trump than HRC.

I don't care what the polls say, I don't believe that.

Well, you're a very smart and logical person. However, I hate to say it, a majority of people are not.

 

[J842P]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

Sadly, I agree. I think that some women (a minority view I hope) find such behavior as roguish. I continue to be amazed that more white women voted for Trump than HRC.

I don't care what the polls say, I don't believe that.

Why?

 

[Toni]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

I can believe Biden went beyond his usual hands-on hair sniffing approach more than a few times. "Grab 'em by the privates" is a significant escalation, but it could happen. Digital penetration is pretty extreme though, and apparently out-of-character. Still, I think there's substance to Reade's story.

I'd rather Biden step aside and the Democrats choose a candidate from those who survived the first few rounds of the debates. And I'd rather there be a genuine investigation into the allegation, not a dog-and-pony show with the Democrat version of Lindsey Graham wringing his hands over how unfair it is that men seeking high office have to endure having their past behavior scrutinized.

I think that and then I remember: Bill Cosby.

But different circumstances here. Where I really get stuck is how she described her clothing: typical business wear skirt, blouse, no pantyhose. Back in my DC days, I was really thin and had a hard time finding skirts with a small enough waist band--there was some extra room there. Still, I am certain that it would have been quite a struggle for any adult to stick their hand down my waist to my crotch area, even if I were cooperative (not to suggest anything at all about cooperation or non-cooperation of Tara Reade--I'm just saying that it seems like a difficult thing to do under the best of circumstances.) Alternatively, up her skirt---a pencil skirt? Again, not impossible but hard to imagine unless the skirt were way too big and even then. Now pull her in for a kiss with tongue, suggestions of other stuff, grabbing her ass or her breast? Plausible. It's the whole digital penetration WEARING THE OUTFIT SHE DESCRIBED part that I have some trouble with. If she had said: mini skirt--then sure, I could imagine that happening because it would have been relatively easy to accomplish. What she describes seems difficult to accomplish, especially in a hallway in a building with people in it, not some dark corner somewhere.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you believe you are reading these words right now? If so, what amount of money could I give you for you to believe you were not reading them?

You have asked an analogous question before. It is irrelevant. The fact that one may not control what one believes some of the time does not mean they cannot control what they believe all of the time.

To answer your question, I literally did not believe I was reading your question since it is idiotic.

Tell me, on what occassions have you wilfully controlled what you believe?

 

[Metaphor]

Why would I have done that--tried to show him that he was wrong? He wasn't worried or frightened. He was delighted with the idea. Why would I do something to squash his imagination.

Why would that squash his imagination? My childhood was filled with things that I knew were not there--it's called pretend.

People are people, including police officers. It takes an exceptional person to be able to follow all leads if they believe (again--they are acting on THEIR belief) that they are following up on something that didn't happen. They dismiss evidence, do not pursue leads, don't do follow ups with quite the same intensity as if they believe that the alleged crime actually happened. This is particularly true if time and other resources are short, as they always are in police work.

Which is why police need best practice that they can follow, concrete steps they can take, rather than have feminists push a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that people can will themselves to believe something they don't believe.

You can believe and have doubts. You can recognize that the person making a report or statement is traumatized and likely emotion is clouding memory as to specifics, that memory will almost certainly be fragmented and may be recovered over time. The attacker may have only been wearing a distinctive red jacket and single glove and have no other resemblance to Michael Jackson---but if you don't believe the person that something did happen, then you don't get more information from them, and you investigate half heartedly believing that it was a lie or mostly a lie.

I believe in things without being 100% certain. I disbelieve in things without being 100% certain. The issue is not the doubt. The issue is that it's involuntary.

Up until my early 20s, I believed in God. And then during my early 20s, over the course of several months or years, I slowly lost belief in God. At no point could I have chosen to believe other than I did.

 

[Metaphor]

Is it your understanding that people making claims of rape are generally telling the truth? Or is it your understanding that a material portion of them are making false allegations?

I don't know. How could you tell if they were?

However, some of them are definitely making false allegations. Some have concocted stories from whole cloth (one I recall was a 'staged' sexual assault to get revenge against an ex; another was a claim that a taxi driver raped her, concocted to hide an affair). These are probably the least common type of false allegation--where sex of any kind did not occur.

Some seem like consensual sex took place that was not rape. Emma Sulkowicz is a prominent example. She was awarded a Woman of Courage Award by NOW for lying about being raped. Anybody who was not a feminist who read the evidence arising in her case would have to be plain unhinged to think it was consistent with being raped.

What is your understanding of how women have historically been treated with respect to rape accusations? What are your views on the fairness of that treatment?

It depends, surely. A white woman accusing a black man of raping her was likely to be taken quite seriously.

 

[Arctish]

Is it your understanding that people making claims of rape are generally telling the truth? Or is it your understanding that a material portion of them are making false allegations?

I don't know. How could you tell if they were?

Well, you could analyze the available data and compare the number of claims for which sufficient supporting evidence to bring a case to court was found vs. the ones for which insufficient supporting evidence was found vs. the ones for which no evidence was found vs. the ones for which falsifying evidence was found vs. the ones for which evidence of lying was found, and calculate the average rate at which each occurs. Then you could use the results as a basis for believing (Merrian-Webster definition 1a.) that people making claims of rape are generally telling the truth.

Some folks might gain more certainty if they find supporting evidence over the course of an investigation. But if you're genuinely unable to hold to a provisional belief based on probabilities, you will never be able to tell because you need religious faith in order to believe something, and you're not a religious person.

However, some of them are definitely making false allegations. Some have concocted stories from whole cloth (one I recall was a 'staged' sexual assault to get revenge against an ex; another was a claim that a taxi driver raped her, concocted to hide an affair). These are probably the least common type of false allegation--where sex of any kind did not occur.

Some seem like consensual sex took place that was not rape. Emma Sulkowicz is a prominent example. She was awarded a Woman of Courage Award by NOW for lying about being raped

This is a bullshit smear worthy of a MRA stooge, Metaphor.

What is your evidence she was lying?

Oh, yeah. I remember how this goes. She was unable to prove she was raped so that means she was lying, right? She freely admitted the sex started out as consensual so that means she agreed to any and all sex acts, no matter how painful. Once a girl says yes, she can't change her mind. The guy was accused by 2 other women and 1 man of forcing unwanted sexual contact on them but that doesn't mean anything. Sulkowitz must have been lying because if she had been telling the truth Nungesser would have admitted it, upstanding non-serial sexual assaulter that he is.

Anybody who was not a feminist who read the evidence arising in her case would have to be plain unhinged to think it was consistent with being raped.

Anyone who is not committed to exclusively using the most extreme definition of "believe" would not have to be unhinged to believe that a guy with Nungesser's reputation might have flipped over his girlfriend during a conventional lovemaking session and anally penetrated her without warning or lube and then ignored her cries to stop. And you'd have to be pretty clueless to think that sort of thing isn't consistent with rape.

But you'd have to be a Feminist to believe a woman reporting a rape, amirite? Because "believe" means utter, absolute faith. It has no other meaning. And only a Feminist could possibly believe that there are women among the ~90% of self-identified victims of rape for which supporting evidence of their claims is found. .

 

[Metaphor]

This is a bullshit smear worthy of a MRA stooge, Metaphor.
What is your evidence she was lying?

Her own testimony and the evidence that emerged during the investigation.

Oh, yeah. I remember how this goes. She was unable to prove she was raped so that means she was lying, right? She freely admitted the sex started out as consensual so that means she agreed to any and all sex acts, no matter how painful. Once a girl says yes, she can't change her mind. The guy was accused by 2 other women and 1 man of forcing unwanted sexual contact on them but that doesn't mean anything. Sulkowitz must have been lying because if she had been telling the truth Nungesser would have admitted it, upstanding non-serial sexual assaulter that he is.

Sulkowicz was lying and if you have read the case, and you are not convinced she was lying, then there is literally no woman you would not believe about being raped.

Anyone who is not committed to exclusively using the most extreme definition of "believe" would not have to be unhinged to believe that a guy with Nungesser's reputation might have flipped over his girlfriend during a conventional lovemaking session and anally penetrated her without warning or lube and then ignored her cries to stop. And you'd have to be pretty clueless to think that sort of thing isn't consistent with rape.

But you'd have to be a Feminist to believe a woman reporting a rape, amirite? Because "believe" means utter, absolute faith. It has no other meaning. And only a Feminist could possibly believe that there are women among the ~90% of self-identified victims of rape for which supporting evidence is found. .

No. You don't have to be a feminist to believe a woman reporting rape, but if you promote the mindless, destructive idea of 'believe women', you are probably a feminist.

 

[Arctish]

This is a bullshit smear worthy of a MRA stooge, Metaphor.
What is your evidence she was lying?

Her own testimony and the evidence that emerged during the investigation.

Link to it.

 

[Toni]

Why would that squash his imagination? My childhood was filled with things that I knew were not there--it's called pretend.



Which is why police need best practice that they can follow, concrete steps they can take, rather than have feminists push a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that people can will themselves to believe something they don't believe.

You can believe and have doubts. You can recognize that the person making a report or statement is traumatized and likely emotion is clouding memory as to specifics, that memory will almost certainly be fragmented and may be recovered over time. The attacker may have only been wearing a distinctive red jacket and single glove and have no other resemblance to Michael Jackson---but if you don't believe the person that something did happen, then you don't get more information from them, and you investigate half heartedly believing that it was a lie or mostly a lie.

I believe in things without being 100% certain. I disbelieve in things without being 100% certain. The issue is not the doubt. The issue is that it's involuntary.

Up until my early 20s, I believed in God. And then during my early 20s, over the course of several months or years, I slowly lost belief in God. At no point could I have chosen to believe other than I did.

Belief is not involuntary. For example, you seem to have devoted a great deal of effort to convince yourself that belief is involuntary.

 

[Metaphor]

This is a bullshit smear worthy of a MRA stooge, Metaphor.
What is your evidence she was lying?

Her own testimony and the evidence that emerged during the investigation.

Link to it.

You can find many sources for what happened in the case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...nungesser-lawsuit-rape-accusation-exonerated/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2017/07/19/lets-put-the-mattress-girl-case-to-bed/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/columbia-student-i-didnt-rape-her

In this particular case, Nungesser said the sex was consensual. Why do you believe Sulkowicz and not Nungesser?

 

[Metaphor]

Why would that squash his imagination? My childhood was filled with things that I knew were not there--it's called pretend.



Which is why police need best practice that they can follow, concrete steps they can take, rather than have feminists push a pie-in-the-sky fantasy that people can will themselves to believe something they don't believe.

You can believe and have doubts. You can recognize that the person making a report or statement is traumatized and likely emotion is clouding memory as to specifics, that memory will almost certainly be fragmented and may be recovered over time. The attacker may have only been wearing a distinctive red jacket and single glove and have no other resemblance to Michael Jackson---but if you don't believe the person that something did happen, then you don't get more information from them, and you investigate half heartedly believing that it was a lie or mostly a lie.

I believe in things without being 100% certain. I disbelieve in things without being 100% certain. The issue is not the doubt. The issue is that it's involuntary.

Up until my early 20s, I believed in God. And then during my early 20s, over the course of several months or years, I slowly lost belief in God. At no point could I have chosen to believe other than I did.

Belief is not involuntary. For example, you seem to have devoted a great deal of effort to convince yourself that belief is involuntary.

Okay luv.

The fact that not a single person has come up with an example of 'voluntary beliefs' should trouble you, but evidently evidence is not something that shapes your belief.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you believe you are reading these words right now? If so, what amount of money could I give you for you to believe you were not reading them?

You have asked an analogous question before. It is irrelevant. The fact that one may not control what one believes some of the time does not mean they cannot control what they believe all of the time.

To answer your question, I literally did not believe I was reading your question since it is idiotic.

Tell me, on what occassions have you wilfully controlled what you believe?

Up until this thread, I willfully controlled that I believed your hyperbolically stated positions were rational despite all the evidence to the contrary.

A long time ago, I believed in a loving, all knowing God. After some conversations and some deep thinking (which was willful), I choose to conclude that was not true.

 

[Toni]

I believe that mentioned religious belief upthread.

Quite a number of well educated people—even holding advanced degrees in science still believe in a deity, still adhere to an established religion because they choose to believe in their religion, despite having at hand many well established facts that could dissuade them as those facts have dissuaded so many others. Religious belief or disbelief is a matter of choice. Sometimes, well educated adults who were not raised in religious households choose to adopt a religion because they have chosen to believe in a deity and religious philosophy.

 

[Arctish]

Link to it.

You can find many sources for what happened in the case.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017...nungesser-lawsuit-rape-accusation-exonerated/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2017/07/19/lets-put-the-mattress-girl-case-to-bed/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/columbia-student-i-didnt-rape-her

I have seen and read many sources on the case.

What is your evidence Sulkowitz was lying?

The Daily Beast article you linked to is the most comprehensive of the three, although it failed to mention there was a fourth accuser, a male student who said Nungesser sexually assaulted him as well. Even so, in all that detailed account of who did what when, there's no evidence Sulkowitz was lying about Nungesser's actions. So why do you believe she was? And just how certain is your belief? Is it provisional or absolute?

In this particular case, Nungesser said the sex was consensual. Why do you believe Sulkowicz and not Nungesser?

If all I had to go on was the basic he said/she said, I would probably think it was a horrible miscommunication, much like the Al and Bert scenario I presented earlier in the thread. But there are three other people who say Nungesser sexually assaulted them. For me, that tips the scales toward believing Sulkowitz' accusation and disbelieving Nungesser's denials.

BTW, they both say the sex started out as consensual. Sulkowitz says that changed when Nungesser did something that was very painful and upsetting, and ignored her cries to stop. They both say he'd been drinking so perhaps that was a factor. Or maybe he just likes pushing past boundaries, which would certainly explain the other three accusations.

Anyway, you said Sulkowitz was lying. Where's the evidence of that?

 

[Toni]

I have seen and read many sources on the case.

What is your evidence Sulkowitz was lying?

The Daily Beast article you linked to is the most comprehensive of the three, although it failed to mention there was a fourth accuser, a male student who said Nungesser sexually assaulted him as well. Even so, in all that detailed account of who did what when, there's no evidence Sulkowitz was lying about Nungesser's actions. So why do you believe she was? And just how certain is your belief? Is it provisional or absolute?

In this particular case, Nungesser said the sex was consensual. Why do you believe Sulkowicz and not Nungesser?

If all I had to go on was the basic he said/she said, I would probably think it was a horrible miscommunication, much like the Al and Bert scenario I presented earlier in the thread. But there are three other people who say Nungesser sexually assaulted them. For me, that tips the scales toward believing Sulkowitz' accusation and disbelieving Nungesser's denials.

BTW, they both say the sex started out as consensual. Sulkowitz says that changed when Nungesser did something that was very painful and upsetting, and ignored her cries to stop. They both say he'd been drinking so perhaps that was a factor. Or maybe he just likes pushing past boundaries, which would certainly explain the other three accusations.

Anyway, you said Sulkowitz was lying. Where's the evidence of that?

Obviously Metaphor believes she was lying and such belief is totally beyond his control despite any lack of evidence to support his belief. At least if I correctly understand Metaphor’s beliefs about belief.