Nice selective editing TheDeuce. Only used the part of my post that makes your point. Dare I use the out of context description here?

 

But, to avoid any confusion for some, perhaps I will vet my posts through my attorneys going forward. As noted in bold above, I said very rare earlier in the exact same post. However, to make my position exactly clear to everyone, I guess I should have added in very rare to the last line as well and written the last line to say:

 

"Only in very rare situations do women make these things up."

 

Are we good now? :idunno:

 

To reiterate my key point, we should err on the side of the women when they make these claims. Yes, they need to offer some proof but believe them first, acknowledge their courage for coming forward, offer support and then verify. We should not make women the victim again by immediately questioning them as if they are making it up and/or then attacking them. In fact, we should believe them until there is some clear reason not to.

 

I cannot agree with this last paragraph, especially the last sentence. "Believe them until there is some clear reason not to"?! I cannot prove that 10 years ago on this date I told my wife I loved her unless she agreed that I said it or other people were around and they corroborate my story. But if we were alone and she denied I said such a thing on that date I could not prove I did and she cannot prove I did not. So, should the world assume I did not say it because my wife said I didn't.

 

In sexual harassment and sexual abuse cases the stakes are much higher and the consequences much more severe. The commandment against "bearing false witness" is there for a reason. Great damage is done by vengeful people. It isn't as rare as you may think. It will become less rare if we assume the person telling the story is accurate and the other person is guilty until proven innocent.

 

You cannot assume that someone is guilty. The accuser must prove her/his case. Otherwise there is no due process and our justice system will no longer be able to discern what is just.

 

I agree, when an accusation is made, we must take the person very seriously. But we don't have to assume the other person is guilty in order to achieve the former. Launching a serious investigation into the matter is taking the person seriously. Telling them to hush up and not make waves is not taking them seriously. But assuming a person is guilty until they can prove their innocence creates a new victim.

I cannot agree with this last paragraph, especially the last sentence. "Believe them until there is some clear reason not to"?! I cannot prove that 10 years ago on this date I told my wife I loved her unless she agreed that I said it or other people were around and they corroborate my story. But if we were alone and she denied I said such a thing on that date I could not prove I did and she cannot prove I did not. So, should the world assume I did not say it because my wife said I didn't.

 

In sexual harassment and sexual abuse cases the stakes are much higher and the consequences much more severe. The commandment against "bearing false witness" is there for a reason. Great damage is done by vengeful people. It isn't as rare as you may think. It will become less rare if we assume the person telling the story is accurate and the other person is guilty until proven innocent.

 

You cannot assume that someone is guilty. The accuser must prove her/his case. Otherwise there is no due process and our justice system will no longer be able to discern what is just.

 

I agree, when an accusation is made, we must take the person very seriously. But we don't have to assume the other person is guilty in order to achieve the former. Launching a serious investigation into the matter is taking the person seriously. Telling them to hush up and not make waves is not taking them seriously. But assuming a person is guilty until they can prove their innocence creates a new victim.

 

Can you imagine how scary a world it would be if we presumed everyone was guilty of the crime they were accused of and the accused had to prove their innocence and not the other way around?

Nice selective editing TheDeuce. Only used the part of my post that makes your point. Dare I use the out of context description here?

 

But, to avoid any confusion for some, perhaps I will vet my posts through my attorneys going forward. As noted in bold above, I said very rare earlier in the exact same post. However, to make my position exactly clear to everyone, I guess I should have added in very rare to the last line as well and written the last line to say:

 

"Only in very rare situations do women make these things up."

 

Are we good now? :idunno:

 

To reiterate my key point, we should err on the side of the women when they make these claims. Yes, they need to offer some proof but believe them first, acknowledge their courage for coming forward, offer support and then verify. We should not make women the victim again by immediately questioning them as if they are making it up and/or then attacking them. In fact, we should believe them until there is some clear reason not to.

I guess I didn't read this portion originally. What in the world? I'm not saying we immediately call them liars but are kidding me?

I think any man who does things like Lauer and Weinstein are sick individuals and need to be locked up. I have no time for these losers.

 

But it is insane to say a majority of men sexually harass women . Most men I know are respectful. I grew up with parents who told me if I ever saw a man touch or harass a woman to speak up.

 

I feel sorry for all these women and these sick men need to be stopped. But I can have these feelings and still be worried about calling someone guilty without proof.