TheLeviathan
-
Posts
21,582 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by TheLeviathan
-
Good thing the Phillies could ask for something like...a catcher. Or a shortstop. Or, you know, any other non-pitcher. Rogers might be one of two or three prospects for some of these guys, but the idea you think Carson Smith is getting dealt for Taylor Rogers means your valuation of Rogers is way off the map.
-
That's fine and I agree, but the this tactic "scare everyone so people act less like criminals" never works to reduce crime.
-
And real care and concern for the victim to go with it. We also need to fundamentally reteach what masculinity is all about.
-
You want to rethink proof standards and find ways to encourage rape victims to be more willing to report and see their way through charging a rapist? I'm fine with that. Let's attack that problem rather than take the "tough on crime" approach. Hasn't that model failed enough to try and implement it AGAIN? We can't change the nature of rape, but it's not the only crime where physical evidence can be difficult to find. You're talking about a fundamental loosening of the burden of proof, which is an attack on the very nature of justice. If this is supposed to be as effective as you say and they DON'T largely believe the accuser, how exactly is this supposed to change a god damn thing? You can't have it both ways. If this is going to be effective at changing a mindset, it's going to have to be VERY uncomfortable for the accused. To make this out to be some sort of objective matter either erodes at how earth shaking it's going to be or is just plain lying about the intention/execution of it.
-
Except, when the burden of proof goes to affirmative consent it quickly shifts if all that can be produced is rival testimony. There is a guise of "let the facts guide us", but (and no one, not even those defending this are arguing what you are) the truth is that the accused has to prove themselves out of the accusation. The no presumption thing ends as soon as the rubber hits the road. I don't know as to the nature of the proceedings, but you have routinely stressed that all it will be is booted out of school. The reasoning and the label why are far more damaging.
-
But much to be lost and much hardship to be caused for the accused when they are innocent. That's the point you keep missing. Since when is liberalism about punishing the innocent to alter the criminal?
-
No presumption of innocence and presumption of guilt are a distinction without a difference. And, as the Harvard legal experts pointed out, in civil cases you get to have representation, to face your accusers, and all of the other extremely important components of our judicial system to maintain a fair hearing of the facts and testimonies. That is not the case here. When you shift the onus of proof on to the accused it is a reversal of our current system. This is made especially difficult to unprove when what you are talking about are largely verbal interactions. I continue to be bothered by your insistence on arguing that the consequence is merely to be kicked out of school. It is obviously much worse than that.
-
I wouldn't flip our basic understanding of justice because you don't dissuade criminals by punishing innocents. On college campuses I would thoroughly instruct men and women on the dangers of drinking, including rape and a variety of other crimes. I would severely punish fraternities for verified crimes and for other excesses. I would have someone independent on the campus, tied with law enforcement, that would pursue allegations and investigate thoroughly. There are probably a myriad of other ways that aren't coming to mind, but the idea behind this is flawed. Yes, men need to know that anything other than consent is not consent. That needs to be absolutely stressed. This is something else entirely.
-
Yeah, not sure this can go much farther when Taylor Rogers can acquire Carson Smith. That's just not going to happen.
-
Except the difference is our system is designed to prevent this from simply being a matter of choosing who you believe more. In this system, criminality is assumed and if all you can offer is your word - what possible hope do you have to clear your name? Yes, proving crimes (especially rape) can be difficult. Isn't that, at least partially, the point?
-
Yes, unless the partner is drunk, at which point having sex with them automatically becomes rape by these standards. Even if he or she is requesting it. Which then can get into all sorts of other problems.
-
Again, how does one do that short of a verbal interaction? You know, something impossible to prove happened unless you go around recording your every conversation? The rubber meets the road here at some point.
-
A good read on this.
-
The thing is, if this epidemic is true.....why do we need this? Pursuit the ACTUAL rapists you can nail in the court of law and absolutely tar and feather them. Punishing innocent men and women doesn't scare criminals - that methodology has NEVER worked. As for your earlier question - throwing them out is bad, but labeling them a racist with nothing more than testimony is a dangerous and, potentially, very damaging act.
-
What's sexist is supposing women are so fundamentally bound to be victims that we have to remove the presumption of innocence to protect them. I didn't "totally dismiss the epidemic" - I said the studies used to justify that claim have been pretty thoroughly debunked. If an epidemic exists, we haven't had a valid study to conclude it. (Two colleges with flawed methods is not exactly good scientific work) The larger issue is that colleges are settings where rape is going to be more common, if for no other reason than the high propensity for alcohol consumption. So it does need to be addressed, but arguing about the validity of creating laws to regulate sexual coupling is about as definitionaly fascist as I can possibly imagine. It's the same kind of logic "tough on crime" conservatives use when they want to throw people in jail for having a joint in their car. "If we punish the **** out of enough people, even innocent ones, we'll win this fight" That doesn't work. And, on top of that, flippantly disregarding the fact that someone is basically labeled a racist because they can't "prove consent" is going to fundamentally damage innocent lives.
-
I agree mike, there needs to be a serious re-thinking of college sexual encounters. Schools should start by holding more fraternities accountable and investigating charges, but this is overkill.
-
Rapists on campus already rape regardless of actual legal consequences, how is this going to change that? All it will do is scare those people already conscious of wanting consent. How would one even go about "proving" that their partner gave consent? Short of video? (Especially given many of these statutes claim anyone that has consumed alcohol, by definition, cannot give consent) Your argument basically comes down to trying to regulate sexual conduct. Is that a new liberal thing I wasn't aware of? It's sounds like you and the abstinence only folks might be on the same page here. Your justifications are borderline fascist.
-
There is no current system, it's been largely ignored. That's the problem. So rather than taking a more measured approach we decide to basically turn to Klingon law. (Not to mention there are serious concerns with the evidence being cited that rape is an "epidemic") We'll never know if these are false accusations because we've made it basically impossible for there to be proper evidence. How would one even go about refuting a charge? If you're accused, you're basically a rapist. And just because no one is going to prison that makes it sufficient to potentially ruin the lives of teenagers and young adults in the name of "experimentation"? Good lord.
-
Why the false dichotomy? Why can't we just punish rape rather than twisting the burden of proof? Kicking a kid out of college and labeling them a rapist is going to dramatically effect their lives and it's unclear if this will even change anything. Just because something has a noble purpose doesn't give it license to be ****ing stupid. (And already there are laws that colleges have to establish these rules, so while it isn't directly the courts doing this, it's one giant step towards it)
-
Yup, effectively this law makes filmed sex a requirement to avoid being a rapist.
-
It shifts the burden on to the accused.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/living/affirmative-consent-school-policy/ Essentially, if one is accused of rape they go before a "court" of sorts at the university wherein they must prove their sexual partner consented to it. So it's essentially Klingon law. Read what this clown has to say. One of the authors of the bill in California, in response to the question: "How can an innocent person prove their innocence" said:
-
All players are "never that good again" in comparison to their career year - that's the nature of what a career year is and why it's so ridiculous to use it as your point of comparison! That's the whole problem! None of these guys are likely to be cheaper. (Grilli will probably be of comparable cost) Are you willing to give up Polanco or Thorpe or Gordon for these guys?
-
It seems to me that this time of year paying for bullpen pieces happens one of two ways: a) you overpay b ) or you acquire a marginal talent I would imagine we acquire marginal talents.
-
That's such nonsense, you used his career year to trump up your claims. You shift your analysis even slightly and his trend his nonexistent or minimal. I don't mind saying "no" to Benoit, but this is as trumped up a case ASIs possibly imaginable. Especially given we don't know his cost or what these "better" options are.
