<p>Maybe not.</p>
<p>All the rest of the women are lying?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you see the problem?</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>Are you saying nobody is really raped? They just say they are?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is not enough data to conclude either way. Don’t be biased, otherwise you will keep falling for the likes of RS over and over again who would be happy to sell you something that suits your bias. Can you really blame them?</p>
<p>But remember, truth is like herpes, it always outs. Then your heart will be broken. Let go.</p>
<p>“Bottom line, if Jackie cannot back up her story and certain males have now been labeled as rapists because of her, yes, there are juries who will convict her of slander because it is and she should be convicted if that is the case.”</p>
<p>I don’t see how any one individual would be able to win a case. Jackie didn’t name any names. I doubt anyone would have had a case even if her descriptions led to someone being outed as the alleged perp. In a case where the facts don’t match (pool worker etc) there is no chance of a lawsuit by a kid ever winning (IMO). </p>
<p>A lawsuit by the frat is a completely different story though!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who would they sue? Jackie? or UVA? </p>
<p>You are wrong about the truth always coming out.</p>
<p>It is insulting to victims of crimes to say nonsense like that.</p>
<p>My bias? I am interested in the truth. I am always interested in the truth. I have been wrong many times. I am ok with that too. </p>
<p>I am wrong about RS. I don’t t know Jackie. Could be wrong about her.</p>
<p>Can’t go from being wrong about Jackie or RS to saying nobody is getting raped. That would be a lie.</p>
<p>The frat will sue Rolling Stone. At this point, we don’t know what Jackie said and what the writer embellished. But, we will find out.</p>
<p>“Who would they sue? Jackie? or UVA?”</p>
<p>I think they could sue Jackie and RS and have a good case. I would guess UVA: not so much</p>
<p>Of course people are getting raped. Of course rapists are getting away with it. But not all rape accusations are true and we should not prejudge either way. Let the court system do its thing.</p>
<p>Or so I think, YMMV. Court of public opinion has to be the most irrational place, ever, in my experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And you blanket believe them without one shred of proof? May I remind you that Jackie said she was raped too, just like the others, but her story is falling apart. How many other allegations would fall apart if looked at carefully? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem with this statemnt is until questioned you were dead sure Jackie was raped too. So, in short, you can never be wrong because regardless of any one case, because there is rape in the world, then no biggie the false stories. I differ here. It is not OK because false stories wreck the lives of innocents. Innocents should not have to pay just because “others were raped.” Our system is not punishment by proxy to make ourselves feel better.</p>
<p>“Of course people are getting raped. Of course rapists are getting away with it. But not all rape accusations are true and we should not prejudge either way. Let the court system do its thing.”</p>
<p>Absolutely! but assuming that someone is innocent until proven guilty is different than assuming a woman who alleges rape is lying. There are some on here whose comments could be taken that way. </p>
<p>I never said all rape accuastions are true. </p>
<p>I posted a link from Berkeley the other day. An accused person was exonerated. </p>
<p>Studies show most accusations are true. Since I was a professional gambler I look at things like that. </p>
<p>The court system fails. I posted a pretty good link on that too. </p>
<p>Here’s the problem TV4caster. The same people whose message is believe everyone have delivered us this mess. Now what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We should talk more about that then. Likely a topic of common interest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not assume neither? Don’t assume she is truthful. Don’t assume she is lying. Just let it play out in the courts.</p>
<p>Just the facts, ma’am.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>I am retired now. :)</p>
<p>I was not dead sure about Jackie. I said nobody knew for sure. Awctndb, I don’t want to argue nonsense. </p>
<p>Since I was a professional gambler, I learned never to be dead sure. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, women with legitimate cases will be believed just a little bit less. A single lie ruins a legitimate complaint.</p>
<p>Here is a question for everyone that was briefly addressed earlier. Is it better to have X number of rapists go free but have none falsely convicted, or to have a much higher percentage of guilty ones convicted but a small percentage wrongly convicted?</p>
<p>I ask because right now from what I can tell from links and studies etc there are tons of rapists that go free, and very few people that are wrongly convicted. To me that is wrong. </p>
<p>If you took things to the other extreme and said that a woman who has DNA inside of her and says it was rape is telling the truth without some proof that she was lying (like a videotaped consent etc) then you would have very few rapists going free but a few men would probably still somehow be falsely convicted. To me that is wrong. </p>
<p>Which one is “less wrong” to you? or something inbetween? I don’t know what the answer is but I sure don’t like the way things are now. </p>