Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

The lack of a Ray Rice thread speaks volumes about FCB

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

tpeichel

Well-known member
Oct 10, 2008
15,639
119
You know nothing of feminism. You're not a real man. You can't take responsibility for who you are; you just want to play the victim. "Whoa-is-me, it's so hard being a white male in this country." Your mere mention of the alcohol-removing-consent idea and you having a problem with it is why rape and sexual crimes are allowed to persist. You complain about colleges, but you'll be happy to know that the Department of Defense (not exactly a bastion of feminism) abides by the same consent rules you're belittling. You live a sad and sheltered life and I hope you A) never have daughters and B) keep your little rapists-in-training away from MY daughters. "Fight for the rights of our boys." are you ******* kidding me? Men have ALL the rights; and you're pointing out that they have to defend themselves in the area of sexual assault, where men are far-and-away the aggressor? Sad...

What is your evidence that I don't take responsibility for who I am and that I am training a ******? Or are you just making personal attacks because you can't address my arguments?

I think you need to go and spend a day in Family Court to see "equality" in action.

And how is arguing against consent rules that lead to an epidemic of false rape accusations playing the victim? Your pointing to the DOD using these same unfair consent rules just shows that their is another institution that has given in to the feminist/PC ideology, but we already knew that since woman are now allowed in combat.

Those consent rules have huge problems. Let me quote the feminist from the article, because you seemed to have skipped it.

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of "nonconsensual sex" that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. "CALL ME. URGENT. NOW."

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today's college campuses, neither "beyond a reasonable doubt," nor even the lesser "by clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.


These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as "a preponderance of the evidence." What this means, in plain English, is that all my son's accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were "more likely than not" to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens' protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school's committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of "witnesses" deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser's email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to "discuss this matter" with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.
 

hive17

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
21,426
24
What is your evidence that I don't take responsibility for who I am and that I am training a ******? Or are you just making personal attacks because you can't address my arguments?

I think you need to go and spend a day in Family Court to see "equality" in action.

And how is arguing against consent rules that lead to an epidemic of false rape accusations playing the victim? Your pointing to the DOD using these same unfair consent rules just shows that their is another institution that has given in to the feminist/PC ideology, but we already knew that since woman are now allowed in combat.

Those consent rules have huge problems. Let me quote the feminist from the article, because you seemed to have skipped it.

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms. magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of "nonconsensual sex" that supposedly occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment.

It began with a text of desperation. "CALL ME. URGENT. NOW."

That was how my son informed me that not only had charges been brought against him but that he was ordered to appear to answer these allegations in a matter of days. There was no preliminary inquiry on the part of anyone at the school into these accusations about behavior alleged to have taken place a few years earlier, no consideration of the possibility that jealousy or revenge might be motivating a spurned young ex-lover to lash out. Worst of all, my son would not be afforded a presumption of innocence.

In fact, Title IX, that so-called guarantor of equality between the sexes on college campuses, and as applied by a recent directive from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, has obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice. On today's college campuses, neither "beyond a reasonable doubt," nor even the lesser "by clear and convincing evidence" standard of proof is required to establish guilt of sexual misconduct.


These safeguards of due process have, by order of the federal government, been replaced by what is known as "a preponderance of the evidence." What this means, in plain English, is that all my son's accuser needed to establish before a campus tribunal is that the allegations were "more likely than not" to have occurred by a margin of proof that can be as slim as 50.1% to 49.9%.

How does this campus tribunal proceed to evaluate the accusations? Upon what evidence is it able to make a judgment?
The frightening answer is that like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla, the tribunal does pretty much whatever it wants, showing scant regard for fundamental fairness, due process of law, and the well-established rules and procedures that have evolved under the Constitution for citizens' protection. Who knew that American college students are required to surrender the Bill of Rights at the campus gates?
My son was given written notice of the charges against him, in the form of a letter from the campus Title IX officer. But instead of affording him the right to be fully informed, the separately listed allegations were a barrage of vague statements, rendering any defense virtually impossible. The letter lacked even the most basic information about the acts alleged to have happened years before. Nor were the allegations supported by any evidence other than the word of the ex-girlfriend.

The hearing itself was a two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling by the school's committee, during which, my son later reported, he was expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel or even to have an attorney outside the door of the room. The questioning, he said, ran far afield even from the vaguely stated allegations contained in the so-called notice. Questions from the distant past, even about unrelated matters, were flung at him with no opportunity for him to give thoughtful answers.

The many pages of written documentation that my son had put together—which were directly on point about his relationship with his accuser during the time period of his alleged wrongful conduct—were dismissed as somehow not relevant. What was relevant, however, according to the committee, was the unsworn testimony of "witnesses" deemed to have observable knowledge about the long-ago relationship between my son and his accuser.

That the recollections of these young people (made under intense peer pressure and with none of the safeguards consistent with fundamental fairness) were relevant—while records of the accuser's email and social media postings were not—made a mockery of the very term. While my son was instructed by the committee not to "discuss this matter" with any potential witnesses, these witnesses against him were not identified to him, nor was he allowed to confront or question either them or his accuser.

Your actions and statements and "copy-paste" are all I need to know about you and the way you think and act. You present no evidence and what you do is anecdotal at best. You bring up the spectre of "false rape" (which does occur) to minimize the outstanding discrepency in male-on-female versus female-on-male violence.

You're dramatically out of your depth. You are arguing with a nationally registered Victim Advocate, so save your ******** about "family court" and come back when you've actually learned something.

You have done nothing in this thread but make excuses for violence against women. You quote one anecdotal article and try to pass that off as some sort of "feminism research" you did.

Tell you what, when the actual facts support you, I might start listening to your victim-blaming scree; but that **** ain't gonna happen because you're just plain wrong. Wrong and dangerous.
 

tpeichel

Well-known member
Oct 10, 2008
15,639
119
Your actions and statements and "copy-paste" are all I need to know about you and the way you think and act. You present no evidence and what you do is anecdotal at best. You bring up the spectre of "false rape" (which does occur) to minimize the outstanding discrepency in male-on-female versus female-on-male violence.

You're dramatically out of your depth. You are arguing with a nationally registered Victim Advocate, so save your ******** about "family court" and come back when you've actually learned something.

You have done nothing in this thread but make excuses for violence against women. You quote one anecdotal article and try to pass that off as some sort of "feminism research" you did.

Tell you what, when the actual facts support you, I might start listening to your victim-blaming scree; but that **** ain't gonna happen because you're just plain wrong. Wrong and dangerous.

In the scenario below, guilty or not guilty? The district attorney applied the evidence and said not guilty, while the university charged him with assault.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sexual-assault-legal-20140608-story.html#page=2

The college's investigative report, performed by an outside firm, said both parties agreed on the following facts: Both had been drinking, she went to his room, took off her shirt while dancing, made out with him and returned to his room later for sex, asking if he had a condom. When friends stopped by the room to ask if she was OK, she told them yes.

The crux of the case was whether she was too drunk to understand what she was doing — and whether he knew or should have known of her impaired condition.

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office concluded that witnesses agreed that both parties were drunk but "willing participants exercising bad judgment," according to a report by its investigating deputy. The office declined to file rape charges, citing insufficient evidence. The college hired an outside attorney to examine the investigative report and offer a conclusion.


The attorney, Marilou F. Mirkovich, found that the young man did not know that his classmate was too drunk to consent because he, too, was inebriated. But, citing the college's policy that does not allow alcohol or drug consumption to excuse sexual misconduct, Mirkovich found that he should have known and was responsible for the assault.

Feminist equality in action! Only men need to be responsible for their actions. Doesn't the college's policy apply equally to both parties? If the male student was drinking, wasn't she taking advantage of him as well?
 

hive17

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
21,426
24
In the scenario below, guilty or not guilty? The district attorney applied the evidence and said not guilty, while the university charged him with assault.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sexual-assault-legal-20140608-story.html#page=2

The college's investigative report, performed by an outside firm, said both parties agreed on the following facts: Both had been drinking, she went to his room, took off her shirt while dancing, made out with him and returned to his room later for sex, asking if he had a condom. When friends stopped by the room to ask if she was OK, she told them yes.

The crux of the case was whether she was too drunk to understand what she was doing — and whether he knew or should have known of her impaired condition.

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office concluded that witnesses agreed that both parties were drunk but "willing participants exercising bad judgment," according to a report by its investigating deputy. The office declined to file rape charges, citing insufficient evidence. The college hired an outside attorney to examine the investigative report and offer a conclusion.


The attorney, Marilou F. Mirkovich, found that the young man did not know that his classmate was too drunk to consent because he, too, was inebriated. But, citing the college's policy that does not allow alcohol or drug consumption to excuse sexual misconduct, Mirkovich found that he should have known and was responsible for the assault.

Feminist equality in action! Only men need to be responsible for their actions. Doesn't the college's policy apply equally to both parties? If the male student was drinking, wasn't she taking advantage of him as well?

1, I repeat, 1 of you scenarios does not equal data. You know that. There are some stringent guidelines for consent because there needs to be. That's what you fail to understand. The millions, repeat: millions, of sexual assaults are the reason that there needs to be THE clearest rules when it comes to consent. Alcohol is the number one contributing factor to sexual assault, so it needs to be addressed when it comes to consent.

Again, your anti-woman stance and victim-blaming are why we needs these rules. You can go tuttle off and find a few more instances of an extreme mis-use of consent rules, but it does nothing to change the fact that in the 15 minutes it takes you to google some more misogyny, a few more woman will be *****. But they're probably lying, according to you...
 

tpeichel

Well-known member
Oct 10, 2008
15,639
119
I am anti-woman and victim-blaming because I want the law applied equally across genders and I want due process for the accused? What country is this?

Black males commit a disproportionate number of murders in this country, so should we assume accused black murderers are guilty? Should we waive due process and convict solely on a "preponderance of evidence"? Of course not. So why would we strip boys on campus accused of sexual assault of their rights?
 

hive17

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
21,426
24
I am anti-woman and victim-blaming because I want the law applied equally across genders and I want due process for the accused? What country is this?

Black males commit a disproportionate number of murders in this country, so should we assume accused black murderers are guilty? Should we waive due process and convict solely on a "preponderance of evidence"? Of course not. So why would we strip boys on campus accused of sexual assault of their rights?

You, again, are taking one instance and calling it doctrine, meanwhile ignoring the mountain of evidence that goes the other way. In a court of law, the facts come out. Just because some college has some code of conduct, does not mean that women need protection from men when it comes to violence.

I understand that the accusation is often as bad as the conviction. But what you don't know, because you have an agenda, is that it is a FRACTION of the actual cases of sexual assault in this country.

Maybe if people exactly like you and Rush weren't fostering a climate that makes it acceptable to mistreat women, we wouldn't need these laws. But we do.

Since you changed the subject to black males committing murder, and you're so worried about the innocent-accused, can I assume you're anti-death penalty?
 

gmsieb

New member
Apr 19, 2011
1,265
0
It was probably too light, but as some have said, we don't know what happened. Women attack men too and men should be able to protect themselves. That doesn't mean knocking them out. But, as stated, we don't know how that happened.

Chuck finley was attacked by his wife/girlfriend and chose not to fight back. She got him pretty good. After it happened and made the news, people were making fun of finley for getting his a$$ kicked by a woman.

The same thing happened with Lionel Richie and it quieted his career down for years as he became the punchline to many jokes.

In high school, I broke up with a girl. She flipped out, jumped on me, and started throwing punches and kicking. I just put my arms out to protect myself, to keep her at arms distance, until people could stop her. She ended up falling down. Then starting yelling, that I threw her to the ground. I did no such thing. Luckily for me, several people watched the whole thing and said, I stuck my arms out to protect myself. And yes, I went on a road trip for 10 days. It was the last day of school. She threatened to kill me, herself, and I believed her.

No man should ever beat a woman.

But a man does have the right to protect himself.

ALL MEN, but especially the (famous,wealthy), with more to lose, should take training on how to protect themselves without having to throw a punch.

Then again, if they were both very drunk, that training may not have even helped him.

I'm sure the nfl heard the story from Rice and his now wife or soon to be, and took all these into consideration.

I am confident they know more than us.
 

predatorkj

Active member
Aug 7, 2008
11,871
2
It was probably too light, but as some have said, we don't know what happened. Women attack men too and men should be able to protect themselves. That doesn't mean knocking them out. But, as stated, we don't know how that happened.

Chuck finley was attacked by his wife/girlfriend and chose not to fight back. She got him pretty good. After it happened and made the news, people were making fun of finley for getting his a$$ kicked by a woman.

The same thing happened with Lionel Richie and it quieted his career down for years as he became the punchline to many jokes.

In high school, I broke up with a girl. She flipped out, jumped on me, and started throwing punches and kicking. I just put my arms out to protect myself, to keep her at arms distance, until people could stop her. She ended up falling down. Then starting yelling, that I threw her to the ground. I did no such thing. Luckily for me, several people watched the whole thing and said, I stuck my arms out to protect myself. And yes, I went on a road trip for 10 days. It was the last day of school. She threatened to kill me, herself, and I believed her.

No man should ever beat a woman.

But a man does have the right to protect himself.

ALL MEN, but especially the (famous,wealthy), with more to lose, should take training on how to protect themselves without having to throw a punch.

Then again, if they were both very drunk, that training may not have even helped him.

I'm sure the nfl heard the story from Rice and his now wife or soon to be, and took all these into consideration.

I am confident they know more than us.

Man, to be honest, if I made what an NFL player does, I'd never get married or have a gf. Money makes people do some weird stuff.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top