Greg Zaun just let go from Sportsnet.  Seems like an avalanche of celeb men going down.  Who's next?  Should we start a pool?

15 hours ago, basslicker said:

So you're cool with innocent men having their lives ruined by opportunistic people?  Call me when your career and life are destroyed by false allegations. 

This has happened to so many in the U.S. already.  Futures destroyed with no proof or due process.

Are you speaking generally or specifically about the widespread media coverage of this issue since the Harvey revelation or specific men who's lives are now ruined due to false allegations?  I must be missing all the ruined men...

24 minutes ago, Noeller said:

we've been talking at work about "Who's Next...?" and the betting favourite is Darren Dutchyshen........

Didn't he get in trouble for assault a long time ago???  Or was that another TSN guy?  I'm talking way back like 15 years or more.

Just now, Atomic said:

Didn't he get in trouble for assault a long time ago???  Or was that another TSN guy?  I'm talking way back like 15 years or more.

Definitely possible....you just know that guy's overloaded on the "supplements"...... Yeah, it was Dutchy, now that I think about it....it was at a wedding in Sask! He got into it with some guy and was charged with assault.

18 hours ago, Wideleft said:

 

 

Saw my first game live in the 70's against BC.  Sat in the southwest bleachers and learned to hate Bill Baker instantly.

Bill Baker - from Sherridon  Manitoba.  I know him personally and I agree, he's a hard guy to like.  Great football player though.  Ok - back to the left/right bickering.  I will just add that I don't see how it helps to make all of this rape/sexual harrassment stuff political (I am trying hard not to do that myself) or about religion.   It seems more about a culture that needs to be changed.  I honestly don't understand what goes on in the minds of Roy Moore or Anthony Wiener, or what kind of perverse power trip you have to be on to text under-age girls pictures of your junk.  It makes no sense to me.  But clearly there is a problem, and we can only hope that the next generation figures this crap out.  Because it has to stop.

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by kelownabomberfan

16 hours ago, basslicker said:

So you're cool with innocent men having their lives ruined by opportunistic people?  Call me when your career and life are destroyed by false allegations. 

This has happened to so many in the U.S. already.  Futures destroyed with no proof or due process.

I'm a supporter that one is innocent till proven guilty.  I've always believed this because if I was falsely accused of something I'm sure hoping this in in place. 

However, is it an epidemic like you suggest?  If so, how does that epidemic compare to  the number of legitimate cases not being reported or ones that are reported and nothing is being done about them? Complex stuff.

4 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I'm a supporter that one is innocent till proven guilty.  I've always believed this because if I was falsely accused of something I'm sure hoping this in in place. 

However, is it an epidemic like you suggest?  If so, how does that epidemic compare to  the number of legitimate cases not being reported or ones that are reported and nothing is being done about them? Complex stuff.

I find it so odd that some peoples reactions when so many men are being outted for their bad, abusive behavior is "wont someone think of the poor men".  Im with you, where are all these destroyed men who were falsely accused?

The VAST majority of cases recently include multiple accusers, vetted statements, reasonable stories and men who either dont respond or admit at least some wrong-doing.  In the cases of one accuser and a denial, like George Takei, the story goes away.  So what is the issue?

According to CNN, allegations like this have a 2%-7% false rate.  The idea that this is a wide-spread, rampant "revenge scheme" is absurd and another attempt to victim-blame. 

Does it happen?  Ofcourse.  But as discussed previously in this very thread, there was an attempt to set up the Post and they caught it...because they do due diligence. 

@basslicker

Im not saying you're wrong but if you claim many men have been destroyed in the US, please name them.

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I find it so odd that some peoples reactions when so many men are being outted for their bad, abusive behavior is "wont someone think of the poor men".  Im with you, where are all these destroyed men who were falsely accused?

The VAST majority of cases recently include multiple accusers, vetted statements, reasonable stories and men who either dont respond or admit at least some wrong-doing.  In the cases of one accuser and a denial, like George Takei, the story goes away.  So what is the issue?

According to CNN, allegations like this have a 2%-7% false rate.  The idea that this is a wide-spread, rampant "revenge scheme" is absurd and another attempt to victim-blame. 

Does it happen?  Ofcourse.  But as discussed previously in this very thread, there was an attempt to set up the Post and they caught it...because they do due diligence. 

I mostly agree with you but the "false rate" is impossible to know.  I hate it when these news agencies use invented numbers like this.  Unless you know the absolute truth of every situation, there is no way to come up with the percentage that are false or genuine.  I don't doubt the vast majority are legitimate, but to put a number to it is disingenuous because no one really knows.

Just now, Atomic said:

I mostly agree with you but the "false rate" is impossible to know.  I hate it when these news agencies use invented numbers like this.  Unless you know the absolute truth of every situation, there is no way to come up with the percentage that are false or genuine.  I don't doubt the vast majority are legitimate, but to put a number to it is disingenuous because no one really knows.

I didnt do a deep dive into the methodology.  But I imagine they have an idea.  Of course, you are correct that it's difficult to know.  But the number would be low based on the sniff test.  Women that come forward are very poorly treated.  The incidents where a woman makes an accusation strictly for revenge/anger etc are probably pretty easily determined (like in custody or divorce cases).  Where there is more of a question, who knows.  But again, for women to put their names to it and be subjected to abuse, there is probably a number we dont know of women who never come forward.  So certainly, its difficult to quantify.

But the discussion point here being "what about the men" just doesnt fly.  Unless someone wants to defend Moore or Trump or Harvey.  Beating around the bush is lame.  If someone wants to say these guys are the victims, let's hear it. 

3 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I find it so odd that some peoples reactions when so many men are being outted for their bad, abusive behavior is "wont someone think of the poor men".  Im with you, where are all these destroyed men who were falsely accused?

The VAST majority of cases recently include multiple accusers, vetted statements, reasonable stories and men who either dont respond or admit at least some wrong-doing.  In the cases of one accuser and a denial, like George Takei, the story goes away.  So what is the issue?

According to CNN, allegations like this have a 2%-7% false rate.  The idea that this is a wide-spread, rampant "revenge scheme" is absurd and another attempt to victim-blame. 

Does it happen?  Ofcourse.  But as discussed previously in this very thread, there was an attempt to set up the Post and they caught it...because they do due diligence. 

I think you're right about the false rate in the general sense that most people who come forward tell the truth, and I absolutely think it's about time people feel comfortable and safe sharing the horrible things that they have experienced and that the abusers are getting what they deserve.

That being said, it does seem that increasingly that in the court of public opinion it is guilty until proven innocent, and this I have a problem with, even if it affects a relative few. 

5 minutes ago, StevetheClub said:

I think you're right about the false rate in the general sense that most people who come forward tell the truth, and I absolutely think it's about time people feel comfortable and safe sharing the horrible things that they have experienced and that the abusers are getting what they deserve.

That being said, it does seem that increasingly that in the court of public opinion it is guilty until proven innocent, and this I have a problem with, even if it affects a relative few. 

On this topic, the trend absolutely is for the mainstream to believe the women (or men) making the allegations.  However, if you go to social media the accusers still take a lot of heat.  In fact, look at how many women came forward about Trump and the White House called them liars.  So it still happens that women are not believed at the highest level.  But I think it mirrors a "justice norm".  If you walk into a police station and make an accusation, the police treat it as valid...do their due diligence and go from there.  But the same is likely true of most crimes.  There is an air of believing the accuser which in most cases doesnt rise to "guilty" but to "okay, I will treat you like this happened while I investigate".

And yeah, right now, its a hot button thing.  But I still maintain, look at Takei...someone says something, he denies it, case closed.  Ben Affleck was one of the first accused of inappropriate conduct, he apologized and it hasnt stuck to him.  I think there is a weight to these that is reasonable for the most part.

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I didnt do a deep dive into the methodology.  But I imagine they have an idea.  Of course, you are correct that it's difficult to know.  But the number would be low based on the sniff test.  Women that come forward are very poorly treated.  The incidents where a woman makes an accusation strictly for revenge/anger etc are probably pretty easily determined (like in custody or divorce cases).  Where there is more of a question, who knows.  But again, for women to put their names to it and be subjected to abuse, there is probably a number we dont know of women who never come forward.  So certainly, its difficult to quantify.

But the discussion point here being "what about the men" just doesnt fly.  Unless someone wants to defend Moore or Trump or Harvey.  Beating around the bush is lame.  If someone wants to say these guys are the victims, let's hear it. 

Yeah like I said I agree that the majority are probably genuine.  But the scientician in me doesn't like the made-up numbers being touted as fact by news agencies and otherwise.  It is a guess, nothing more.  Literally just a guess.

22 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

@basslicker

Im not saying you're wrong but if you claim many men have been destroyed in the US, please name them.

 

If the false claims are approx. 3-8% then it's worth looking at.  Any number is worth looking at.

 

Most of the stories come out of colleges/universities.  Title IX in the U.S. has been a disaster.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/04/09/wrongfully-expelled-student-hauls-elite-college-into-court/#571a143d1929

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/12/26/former-iu-student-accused-rape-sues-school-accuser-defamation/95649160/

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/um-student-accused-of-rape-sues-school-says-allegations-were-false-9039025

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-denis/title-ix-and-college-rape_b_10637346.html

 

-There's also proven lairs like mattress girl.

https://nypost.com/2017/07/14/columbia-settles-with-student-accused-of-raping-mattress-girl/

Yes, people lie about rape.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/13/business/media/rape-uva-rolling-stone-frat.html

 

Canadian article:

http://torontosun.com/2017/02/23/false-rape-claims-can-destroy-mens-lives/wcm/d78c79f9-08d7-49c5-b397-126c5c19f2e6

These were U.K.:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/24/woman-falsely-accused-15-men-rape-sexual-assault-jailed-ten/

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-11676804

 

I will acknowledge that some false accusers get punished, but much of the damage has been done and it takes years to recover one's good reputation.   I'm not saying don't believe women, I'm saying take a close look at every allegation.

I won't bore anyone with anecdotal evidence because that's not a decent point or argument, but I will say that any woman that takes a payout to shut up or waits 20-40 years to come forward should be questioned.  Women I know who have been legitimately assaulted would never take a payout.

56 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

I'm a supporter that one is innocent till proven guilty.  I've always believed this because if I was falsely accused of something I'm sure hoping this in in place. 

However, is it an epidemic like you suggest?  If so, how does that epidemic compare to  the number of legitimate cases not being reported or ones that are reported and nothing is being done about them? Complex stuff.

No, it's not a majority (or even close) that are false, but you can't believe 100% of allegations on anything without some sort of proof.

So you have provided examples of where the false allegation came to light, accusers used the law to sue.  Good.  Thats what its there for. 

Anyway, not sure what that has to do with the current "Harvey" wave of Hollywood creeps being outted.  But I guess someone has to think about the creeps.

1 minute ago, basslicker said:

No, it's not a majority (or even close) that are false, but you can't believe 100% of allegations on anything without some sort of proof.

You're on the wrong side of the argument.  Like really, whats the point?  Do you think ANYONE here doesnt agree that false accusations happen or innocent until proven guilty isnt the right thing? 

Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

So you have provided examples of where the false allegation came to light, accusers used the law to sue.  Good.  Thats what its there for. 

Anyway, not sure what that has to do with the current "Harvey" wave of Hollywood creeps being outted.  But I guess someone has to think about the creeps.

thats the take away from people being concerned about false accusations?  worrying about the creeps?

 

2 minutes ago, SPuDS said:

thats the take away from people being concerned about false accusations?  worrying about the creeps?

 

No the take away from women feeling empowered to come forward after decades of abuse is "what about the men", apparently.  At least for a couple of people here. 

8 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you have provided examples of where the false allegation came to light, accusers used the law to sue.  Good.  Thats what its there for. 

Anyway, not sure what that has to do with the current "Harvey" wave of Hollywood creeps being outted.  But I guess someone has to think about the creeps.

This is the problem in modern society, whenever a hard discussion is raised, people take the extreme 'you protect creeps!' argument.    It's not protecting creeps by saying you can't believe everyone and let's not go crazy and hang every man accused without proof.   You have to question why a woman would not come forward if she was raped or assaulted some other way.  The "I didn't want to get fired" or "I wanted to make it big in Hollywood and be a big star" aren't good reasons to stay silent. If you have self respect then you won't abide being assaulted.

No different than when people want to talk about fixing our healthcare system.  "You want an American model where people die!"

Or asking questions about the safety of vaccines. "You're an anti-vaxxer and hate science!"

Edited December 7, 20178 yr by basslicker

Just now, basslicker said:

This is the problem in modern society, whenever a hard discussion is raised, people take the extreme 'you protect creeps!' argument.    It's not protecting creeps by saying you can't believe everyone and let's not go crazy and hang every man accused without proof.   You have to question why a woman would not come forward if she was raped or assaulted some other way.  The "I didn't want to get fired" or "I wanted to make it big in Hollywood and be a big star" aren't good reasons to stay silent. If you have self respect then you won't abide being assaulted.

No different than when people want to talk about fixing our healthcare system.  "You want an American model where people die!"

Or asking questions about the safety of vaccines. "You're an anti-vaxxer and hate science!"

LOL!  Thats one way of clouding your position.  But its not accurate.

Its not a hard discussion.  Its a veiled attempt to oppose the women (and men) who are bravely coming forward.  Its lame and its absurd.  I assume its a political thing which is unfortunate because it shouldnt be a political thing. 

You're free to argue whatever point you want but dont get knotted knickers because you're called out for a bizarre outlier perspective to a pretty clear issue.

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

LOL!  Thats one way of clouding your position.  But its not accurate.

Its not a hard discussion.  Its a veiled attempt to oppose the women (and men) who are bravely coming forward.  Its lame and its absurd.  I assume its a political thing which is unfortunate because it shouldnt be a political thing. 

You're free to argue whatever point you want but dont get knotted knickers because you're called out for a bizarre outlier perspective to a pretty clear issue.

LMFAO, No its not actually. its wanting to make sure people consider that not every accusation is going to be accurate to make sure proper vetting happens before the nooses are tied.  Is that such a terrible thing to want?   I mean I get it, you want to champion the females who have been treated so poorly for so long.. I get that, I appreciate that.  I want to see them continue to come forward and take predators to task.. Just not at the risk of the pendulum swinging to the point where every man accused is automatically burned at the stake like the salem witch trials.

5 minutes ago, basslicker said:

You have to question why a woman would not come forward if she was raped or assaulted some other way.  If you have self respect then you won't abide being assaulted.

This seems like an informed opinion.

1 minute ago, SPuDS said:

LMFAO, No its not actually. its wanting to make sure people consider that not every accusation is going to be accurate to make sure proper vetting happens before the nooses are tied.  Is that such a terrible thing to want?   I mean I get it, you want to champion the females who have been treated so poorly for so long.. I get that, I appreciate that.  I want to see them continue to come forward and take predators to task.. Just not at the risk of the pendulum swinging to the point where every man accused is automatically burned at the stake like the salem witch trials.

Oh please.  When we get even in the realm of that, Ill be right there with you.  This isnt that, OBVIOUSLY.  No one has suggested they want that.  Its arguing a point that has never been made.  The real risk is, in considering arguments like that is people like the Moore and Trump supporters can hold it up as "reasonable" in the face of clear and believable allegations to cloud them. 

We're talking about a situation in which the overwhelming truth is these incidents are happening and one or two people make sure to say "gee, it sure sucks for those men being accused because maybe its false".  Huh?  That's a defense for the abusers.

Of course no one wants men to all be labelled predators.  I mean, really. 

14 minutes ago, basslicker said:

This is the problem in modern society, whenever a hard discussion is raised, people take the extreme 'you protect creeps!' argument.    It's not protecting creeps by saying you can't believe everyone and let's not go crazy and hang every man accused without proof.   You have to question why a woman would not come forward if she was raped or assaulted some other way.  The "I didn't want to get fired" or "I wanted to make it big in Hollywood and be a big star" aren't good reasons to stay silent. If you have self respect then you won't abide being assaulted.

No different than when people want to talk about fixing our healthcare system.  "You want an American model where people die!"

Or asking questions about the safety of vaccines. "You're an anti-vaxxer and hate science!"

At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped for saying this, that is the most clueless thing ever posted on this forum and undermines the credibility of anything you have ever previously posted or ever will post.  Just...wow.

 

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Oh please.  When we get even in the realm of that, Ill be right there with you.  This isnt that, OBVIOUSLY.  No one has suggested they want that.  Its arguing a point that has never been made.  The real risk is, in considering arguments like that is people like the Moore and Trump supporters can hold it up as "reasonable" in the face of clear and believable allegations to cloud them. 

We're talking about a situation in which the overwhelming truth is these incidents are happening and one or two people make sure to say "gee, it sure sucks for those men being accused because maybe its false".  Huh?  That's a defense for the abusers.

Of course no one wants men to all be labelled predators.  I mean, really. 

with that I agree... when you have overwhelming supportive evidence and multiple people coming forward then yup there is no need for anyone to say "think of the guy, maybe its false.."  situations like moore, weinstein, lauer, etc..   nobody should be defending these guys..

 

thats not what I'm saying though, so we are probably off on 2 different tangents.