How to perfectly defend against sexual assault allegations?

[suncowiam]

By claiming you were a vrigin when your accusers we're abused.

Well at least that's what the next nomination of the Supreme Court thinks. Thank God he's not being nominated for a position that requires the highest level of logical and critical thinking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...augh-says-he-was-a-virgin-in-high-school/amp/

Anyone want to try to prove his thinking?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

By claiming you were a vrigin when your accusers we're abused.

Well at least that's what the next nomination of the Supreme Court thinks. Thank God he's not being nominated for a position that requires the highest level of logical and critical thinking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...augh-says-he-was-a-virgin-in-high-school/amp/

Anyone want to try to prove his thinking?

The Simpsons did it first. Skinner claimed to be a virgin so he couldn't have been having sex in front of kids, and everyone kinda went "well no one would lie about being a virgin" and wander off

 

[Anthem]

Lets take a look at his **** to make sure.

 

[fantome profane]

The Simpsons did it first. Skinner claimed to be a virgin so he couldn't have been having sex in front of kids, and everyone kinda went "well no one would lie about being a virgin" and wander off

 

[fantome profane]

Just for the record, you can sexually assault someone and still be a virgin. (If by virgin we mean someone who has never had sexual genital penetration type intercourse)

 

[Mindmaster]

By claiming you were a vrigin when your accusers we're abused.

Well at least that's what the next nomination of the Supreme Court thinks. Thank God he's not being nominated for a position that requires the highest level of logical and critical thinking.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...augh-says-he-was-a-virgin-in-high-school/amp/

Anyone want to try to prove his thinking?

So much is wrong here, but I'll straighten it out.

First, judging is a memory job -- you mostly have to memorize the rulings of previous cases to know how to rule in another case. It's not exactly that you have to be the best and the brightest, but Kavanaugh academically was so this is a non-argument.

Secondly, we have no obligation to trust the accuser especially in the case where no suitable evidence has been provided. That's exactly where I am at. Switching it into a man versus woman issue or whatever narrative is just a distraction for the simple-minded. Both parties involved are capable of lying, so it is proof that settles it. Allegations mean nothing until then... Kavanaugh is a very conservative fellow, and it's likely that he didn't even lose his virginity until he married. I have no idea why someone would find this so hard to believe. Certainly, it's not very common in the under 35 crowd but when I grew up this was extremely common. Dating used to be going out with each other and enjoying each other's company until the man put a ring on it. After that, still no hanky panky until wedding day. Both sexes cherished their virginity as something honorable.

So, the short is, I'll presume Brett Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty like anyone else. Neither this woman, nor anyone else is going to change that. I'm not going to see him as a creep because someone who is clearly aligned with the political opposition is yammering about what appears to be nonsense at the moment. If we entertain crazy, we become it. Evidence, or GTFO.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

He was a teen in the late 70's an extremely promiscuous time. Though not quite that as in the 60's
He may have been a virgin but would have been trying very hard not to be, that is, if he was at least normal for a teen.
Most teens and twenties at the time would not have thought there was anything wrong with trying it on, and roving hands and what might be thought inappropriate, today, was absolutely normal then.

Standars change with society.
I believe it wrong to condemn people for living by the standards of their day.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To be fair I believe this was taken out of context a bit. From what I heard he was responding to the second charge. He claimed no sexual activity of any sort in those years. I do not think he used the virgin defense.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So, the short is, I'll presume Brett Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty like anyone else. Neither this woman, nor anyone else is going to change that. I'm not going to see him as a creep because someone who is clearly aligned with the political opposition is yammering about what appears to be nonsense at the moment. If we entertain crazy, we become it. Evidence, or GTFO.

Innocence until proven guilty is important. Respecting people who make accusation is important too. Dismissing people as "yammering about what appears to be nonsense" when the make claims politically inconvenient to your "side" is just as wrong as assuming guilt.

 

[fantome profane]

Kavanaugh is a very conservative fellow, and it's likely that he didn't even lose his virginity until he married.

He may have been a virgin but would have been trying very hard not to be, that is, if he was at least normal for a teen.

With respect I think you are both making assumptions without sufficient evidence.

The only thing I will say is that it is a very serious accusation and it should be taken seriously. (Actually two serious accusations, and perhaps more, and we should take them all seriously).

 

[fantome profane]

Standars change with society.
I believe it wrong to condemn people for living by the standards of their day.

Standards change, people don’t. It is wrong to take joy in hurting another human being. It is wrong today, it was wrong yesterday, it will be wrong tomorrow.

 

[Mindmaster]

With respect I think you are both making assumptions without sufficient evidence.

The only thing I will say is that it is a very serious accusation and it should be taken seriously. (Actually two serious accusations, and perhaps more, and we should take them all seriously).

I don't give a rats *** about accusations, only evidence. If there is no evidence, I have absolutely no concern. Anyone can be accused of anything at any time, it's meaningless without witnesses or evidence. The allegations are only serious if there is evidence, otherwise it's just some Jack-hole or Jane-hole spewing random crap out their mouth. It deserves absolutely no consideration whatsoever at that point.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I don't give a rats *** about accusations, only evidence. If there is no evidence, I have absolutely no concern. Anyone can be accused of anything at any time, it's meaningless without witnesses or evidence. The allegations are only serious if there is evidence, otherwise it's just some Jack-hole or Jane-hole spewing random crap out their mouth. It deserves absolutely no consideration whatsoever at that point.

You are wrong. You are confusing accusation with convictions.

 

[metis]

Kavanaugh is a very conservative fellow, and it's likely that he didn't even lose his virginity until he married.

His roommate during their freshman year at Yale says the Kavanaugh bragged about having sex. Also, Kavanaugh apparently lied when he said he drank "legally" when in high school, but when he was in high school the drinking age was 21. His roommate went on to say that Kavanaugh was a mean drunk.

But either way, an FBI investigation could possibly wade through such matters to determine who's telling the truth, and then we could go on from there. IOW, let's try to get the facts first before passing judgment one way or the other as way too many people are being tribal on this, imo.

 

[metis]

The allegations are only serious if there is evidence, otherwise it's just some Jack-hole or Jane-hole spewing random crap out their mouth. It deserves absolutely no consideration whatsoever at that point.

You're contradicting yourself above because you have drawn a conclusion minus evidence one way or the other, and this is why we badly need the FBI to get involved so as to try and sort things out.

 

[suncowiam]

So much is wrong here, but I'll straighten it out.

First, judging is a memory job -- you mostly have to memorize the rulings of previous cases to know how to rule in another case. It's not exactly that you have to be the best and the brightest, but Kavanaugh academically was so this is a non-argument.

Secondly, we have no obligation to trust the accuser especially in the case where no suitable evidence has been provided. That's exactly where I am at. Switching it into a man versus woman issue or whatever narrative is just a distraction for the simple-minded. Both parties involved are capable of lying, so it is proof that settles it. Allegations mean nothing until then... Kavanaugh is a very conservative fellow, and it's likely that he didn't even lose his virginity until he married. I have no idea why someone would find this so hard to believe. Certainly, it's not very common in the under 35 crowd but when I grew up this was extremely common. Dating used to be going out with each other and enjoying each other's company until the man put a ring on it. After that, still no hanky panky until wedding day. Both sexes cherished their virginity as something honorable.

So, the short is, I'll presume Brett Kavanaugh is innocent until proven guilty like anyone else. Neither this woman, nor anyone else is going to change that. I'm not going to see him as a creep because someone who is clearly aligned with the political opposition is yammering about what appears to be nonsense at the moment. If we entertain crazy, we become it. Evidence, or GTFO.

Over analysis...

Simple question. Do you believe virgins can or cannot commit sexual assault?

 

[Mindmaster]

Over analysis...

Simple question. Do you believe virgins can or cannot commit sexual assault?

No, but at this point I think "sexual assault" includes everything up to and including falling on a woman accidentally after you both had too many. Intent must be proven or there is no assault period. Sexual assault generally requires one to prove that it is sexually-oriented not just an "assault". If someone accidentally touches your breast when they were trying to grab your arm, they're not sexually assaulting you, etc., but may have assaulted you because you didn't want them to touch you.

Most prosecutors, even in abuse cases, would not even try to bring this to court unless there were visible marks or witnesses. To demonstrate that an 'assault happened' the mental state of both parties has to be qualified. You have to be able to prove Kavanaugh intended to touch her, and that she didn't want to be touched at the time. One or the other won't do, you need both. A woman deciding 30 years later that what happened to her was sexual assault and not O.K. is irrelevant. If she thought it was O.K. at the time, it's not assault. If that reason was that she was drunk as a skunk and regrets it now, that's irrelevant.

Mind you, it's not even Kavanaugh's people that are not supporting Ford it's her own friends and family. The only people backing her are her husband and his family. That makes it terrible suspicious as no one, not even Ford can pin down the time of the event. Everyone that was supposedly there knows absolutely nothing, and one of those people is her best friend on the earth.

 

[Mindmaster]

You're contradicting yourself above because you have drawn a conclusion minus evidence one way or the other, and this is why we badly need the FBI to get involved so as to try and sort things out.

You mean the FBI that hasn't found any Russian collusion or Hillary's lost e-mails?

I've drawn the only conclusion you can have at this point:

No evidence = no guilt nor possibility of there being any

That's not exactly the same thing as saying that he didn't do it, but that no one could possibly convict him of it. Guilt means, "You can be convicted in a court of law of a crime", and not, "You did it." But, feel free to mince words all day, I find it amusing.

This is just a game of shifting the goal posts here, so to be clear we're talking about the same thing. Guilt <> he did or didn't do it. Legally, the onus is completely on her to provide evidence, he doesn't have to provide anything and can plead the 5th. He hasn't done this, and has actually been providing evidence of his whereabouts. So, logically, I presume he's honest until given any legitimate bit of evidence to the contrary. Let's please remember that in this country people are PRESUMED innocent, he has nothing to prove, while she has to prove everything.

 

[oldbadger]

By claiming you were a vrigin when your accusers we're abused.

Anyone want to try to prove his thinking?

Sadly that won't work.
A virgin could sexually assault a whole busload of folks and still remain a virgin.

Sexual assault doesn't require intercourse.

But to reduce the risk of accusations:-
1. Don't commit any crimes.
2. Take care who you get close to and alone with. Having fun in company is a good idea, for the witnesses as well as the friendships.

 

[metis]

This is just a game of shifting the goal posts here,

I've not shifted any goalposts so all you've done is to create a convenient strawman to skew, so it's simply a waste of time for me to go any further with you on this.