Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 21, 2015 at 12:00 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Okay even the ndaa link does not claim 2% but 8. An there is a reason that they have such tough measures, and yes I agree with that. It's measures like that, that protected me when my ex fiance accused me of raping her with no evidence at all.
If I claimed it was always 2% I am sorry because it depends on the country, however don't you agree that it's wrong to think that the rule is to be false?
I can understand your situation, and yes it sucks - I am terribly sorry - However, imagine that you were the one being raped and when you tried to press charges everyone doubted of you. Would you feel ok with that? I'm not saying we shouldn't demand proof, I am saying that we shouldn't assume it's false - Some of what I've seen is reasonable, like demanding DNA proof etc, however I don't see why two interrogations is necessary when one would be enough, and I think cops shouldn't ask questions like "what you were wearing?".
I think your situation sucks, for real, but do you think it's safe to assume rape victims are lying because of your case?
I am not saying you doubt victims, but some people including cops assume most rapes are automatically false and deceiving lies - And this is harmful because it stops justice from working.
The reason people assume it is false and treat it with skepticism is because it's the easiest crime to trump up charges. Literally all you have to do if you woman is go to a bar, find a willing guy and have sex with him. That is it, so given that I would say that the current system is at least working to keep innocent people out of jail. Unfortunately because of the nature of rape as a crime it is very difficult to prosecute of you care about keeping innocents out of prison because it often become he said she said.
So instead of making it easier for innocent men to land in jail, why don't we come up with more constructive solutions? Such as support groups for women who want to persecute?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
March 26, 2015 at 12:07 pm (This post was last modified: March 26, 2015 at 12:08 pm by Dystopia.)
(March 26, 2015 at 11:30 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:
(March 21, 2015 at 12:08 pm)Dystopia Wrote: If I claimed it was always 2% I am sorry because it depends on the country, however don't you agree that it's wrong to think that the rule is to be false?
I can understand your situation, and yes it sucks - I am terribly sorry - However, imagine that you were the one being raped and when you tried to press charges everyone doubted of you. Would you feel ok with that? I'm not saying we shouldn't demand proof, I am saying that we shouldn't assume it's false - Some of what I've seen is reasonable, like demanding DNA proof etc, however I don't see why two interrogations is necessary when one would be enough, and I think cops shouldn't ask questions like "what you were wearing?".
I think your situation sucks, for real, but do you think it's safe to assume rape victims are lying because of your case?
I am not saying you doubt victims, but some people including cops assume most rapes are automatically false and deceiving lies - And this is harmful because it stops justice from working.
The reason people assume it is false and treat it with skepticism is because it's the easiest crime to trump up charges. Literally all you have to do if you woman is go to a bar, find a willing guy and have sex with him. That is it, so given that I would say that the current system is at least working to keep innocent people out of jail. Unfortunately because of the nature of rape as a crime it is very difficult to prosecute of you care about keeping innocents out of prison because it often become he said she said.
So instead of making it easier for innocent men to land in jail, why don't we come up with more constructive solutions? Such as support groups for women who want to persecute?
It's not easy for innocent men to land in jail because the system is incredibly skeptical of victims - And no, it isn't like you said, you don't simply say "he did it" and that's it, there's a lot of long psychological troublesome procedures you need to take to prosecute someone - I'm talking about interrogations, DNA tests, filling statements, etc etc - Not to mention that cops are less likely to believe you if you're not attractive, thin and young. Given that false accusations exist in any crime, it doesn't make sense for the system to be more skeptical of rape victims than, let's say, murder, robbery or torture victims. The reason why the system is skeptical is because people still believe women are lying bitches and that if she got raped it's because she deserved. I'm not interested in the hyperskeptical intellectually diminished victim mentality of MRA's.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
(March 20, 2015 at 7:32 pm)Delicate Wrote: I liked Carl Sagan.
But he wasn't an atheist. He was agnostic.
Sagan was simply a smart guy. Neil Degrasse Tyson also does not like calling himself "atheist'. If Sagan didn't like saying "I am an atheist" because of his rightful admission he didn't know the future, he made a mistake.
You can hold positions of the past and present while "technically" admitting you don't know the future.
I would bet my life, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, that all past and present claims of god/s are man made. I am only "technically" "agnostic" about the future.
I think Tyson avoids using "off" which is all the word "atheist" means because of the stigma others attach to it. But neither Sagan or Neil believe in a personal god, much less the gods of those violent books.
You can reject past claims, you can reject current claims, and still while being sure about the future being highly unlikely while "technically" admitting you don't "technically" know.
Agreed. Just wanted to add Sagan never said "By some definitions Atheism is very stupid". That was made up probably for someone's own agenda. Just doesn't sound like Sagan. After having that one thrown in my face I dug around and found its source but not with that line in it.
"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheist. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do know to be sure that no such God exist ..."
From other quotes of his I think its pretty clear what his take was.
"“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
February 16, 2016 at 5:29 pm (This post was last modified: February 16, 2016 at 5:30 pm by drfuzzy.)
(February 16, 2016 at 5:22 pm)undoctrinated Wrote:
(March 20, 2015 at 10:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
Sagan was simply a smart guy. Neil Degrasse Tyson also does not like calling himself "atheist'. If Sagan didn't like saying "I am an atheist" because of his rightful admission he didn't know the future, he made a mistake.
You can hold positions of the past and present while "technically" admitting you don't know the future.
I would bet my life, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, that all past and present claims of god/s are man made. I am only "technically" "agnostic" about the future.
I think Tyson avoids using "off" which is all the word "atheist" means because of the stigma others attach to it. But neither Sagan or Neil believe in a personal god, much less the gods of those violent books.
You can reject past claims, you can reject current claims, and still while being sure about the future being highly unlikely while "technically" admitting you don't "technically" know.
Agreed. Just wanted to add Sagan never said "By some definitions Atheism is very stupid". That was made up probably for someone's own agenda. Just doesn't sound like Sagan. After having that one thrown in my face I dug around and found its source but not with that line in it.
"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheist. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do know to be sure that no such God exist ..."
From other quotes of his I think its pretty clear what his take was.
"“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe."
Bob
Why post to a necro thread?
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
Fair enough.
![[Image: quote-an-atheist-has-to-know-a-lot-more-...263888.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=izquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-an-atheist-has-to-know-a-lot-more-than-i-know-an-atheist-is-someone-who-knows-there-is-no-god-by-carl-sagan-263888.jpg)
