TakeYouToTasker

Most assets obtained are not returned because assets, unlike individuals, do not enjoy the presumption of innocence until proven guilty; which provides the government with the legal justification to keep them. In order to have the assets returned, the complainant must prove that the assets were not ill-gotten, which is substantially more difficult than the government having to prove that they were ill-gotten. No, you just propose that their lives be destroyed because of brand new unfounded accusations made of indiscretions many years prior. Tell me, how does an individual go about proving that they did not sexually assault someone 10, 20, or 30 years ago?

/facepalm We aren't talking about legalities. How many times does this need to be said? Are you simply not reading? We are talking about the importance of the notion of innocence until proven guilty, why that standard evolved in the liberal tradition, and why it's a good idea as a baseline. You also have a very flimsy understanding of how difficult it is to prove a negative.

Individuals are equal under the law or they are not. You cannot have equality if you insist of prejudicing.

A bit over simplified, but if that is actually the case, and a logical argument is forwarded that we should not do that, you cannot use it as a justification to do the exact same thing to a different group. No, it would not be incredibly easy to prove you did not steal from me. This is the entire basis for RICO laws, and why almost none of the assets seized under RICO forfeiture are returned to it's owners. You might be able to prove some money was not stolen, but you'll never be able to prove that all money was not stolen, especially if you aren't in possession of the money I say you stole.

This is a painfully stupid response. You're the one looking to do away with the notion of the presumption of innocence, which is the central hallmark liberal jurisprudence, in favor of a system where we just go ahead and believe whatever the accuser says. I gave you a thought experiment to contemplate, which created a parallel between a sexual assault accuser and a theft accuser for illustrative purposes, and you were so lacking in your ability to reason, you simply shut it down in your mind rather than considering it. I'll revisit the experiment: the police officer, starting with the assumption that you did in fact steal my money has prejudiced the entire situation. The burden is now on you to prove you did not steal my money, and as logical inquiry tells us, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. As difficult as it would be for you to prove your innocence (even in your example, you might have been able to demonstrate that you didn't steal the $50 you currently have in your wallet from me) it would be insurmountably difficult to prove that you did not steal any other $50 sum which you are no longer in possession of, or $50 I claimed you stole from me 30 years ago.

No. They don't deserve to be believed. The justness of the process is more important than individual outcomes, and you're seeking to create a system of unequal rights in which men are subjugated to women. It is better to have a system in which all individuals are responsible for their own choices, and we err on the side of not destroying the lives of the innocent than to have a system in which one group of people have carte blanche to destroy anyone they want within another group with nothing more than their say so.

An accusation is a charge. Those are synonyms. I'm not talking about legalities here. What I'm talking about is the acceptance that there is a reason a presumption of innocence is the legal standard in the liberal tradition, and I find arguments in favor of that standard to be far more compelling in the interests of justice than the assumption of guilt.

What I said is that I am very sypathetic towards individuals facing charges without evidence, and that I think it is wrong to expose individuals to negative outcomes based on charges absent evidence. I provided a thought experiment illustrating why the presumption of guilt is problematic to a society seeking to be just.

No, they don't deserve to be believed. You have it 100% backwards. Justice is not metered out based on feelings. It requires evidence, and the ability of the accused to meet their accuser with the presumption of innocence. You cannot reconcile the presumption of innocence of the accused, with the burden of proof being on the accuser; with the assertion that the accuser has the right to be believed. These things are opposing ideals. The first is the hallmark of the liberal system of jurisprudence, the second is a prop of third world kangaroo courts empowered to destroy lives on a whim with no evidence. The fact is that I sympathize with anyone who has their lives ruined by charges absent evidence because that is a system which courts abuse and injustice by design, and assumes with the presumption of guilt forcing the accused to prove their innocence. Let's do a thought experiment: You and I are standing near each other. You have $50 dollars in your wallet. A police officer walks by and I tell the officer you stole my money. We live in a society in which the accuser has the right to be believed. Prove you didn't steal my money, or go to jail.

Of course we should, so long as the standard is conclusive proof of guilt.

They're unfounded because they are unprovable, and when you are metering out consequences you can't do so in absence of evidence. That's a standard the throws out any guise of equality, and insists that women don't have equal rights, but rather enjoy special rights men don't under which their word is to be taken in any conflict between the two sexes. That's not victim shaming, that's the bare minimum to establish that a victim actually exists, which is central to justice. Again, women are not special, delicate flowers who need your protection. They are individuals who must be required to accept the outcomes of their choices.

So where you have to start is that it's acceptable to destroy the lives of men based on unfounded charges? That's an unacceptable standard. The acceptable standard is that women are not special delicate flowers who need to be protected. They are individuals who need to take full responsibility for the choices they make, including the choice not to report a sexual assault.

You're being intellectually dishonest, which is a shame because this had the potential to be an interesting discussion.. The truth is that you want an enforceable standard you are unwilling to define, outside of the notion that the standard should disadvantage men who engage in normal sexual behaviors.

Believing the accuser is not a reasonable standard when metering out consequences. There is a reason liberalism evolved a standard of "innocent until proven guilty", and while we aren't talking about the law, we are talking about an operational societal standard.

Finally getting back to being honest in your posts. Again, you simply wish to substitute your fiat declarations for what is reasonable; and to those ends refuse the discussion.

In a vacuum, of course that wouldn't be acceptable behavior. But we aren't in a vacuum. There are many contexts in which the historical interactions of the people involved could make that exact same interaction completely reasonable.

This is certainly a drastic shift from page seven of the discussion where you declared "if we really have to define what is appropriate or inappropriate, then I don't know what else to say.... ", and more recently informed me that "the discussion isn't about what constitutes normal human behavior, that's what you want it to be about", where you sought to impose your own views by fiat rather than discuss them. If you want to start over, I'm fine with that. Let's start with a list of behaviors, obviously not comprehensive, and where they fall on the scale of acceptability.

No, you're simply making a personal choice to moderate your own behavior based on your own preferences. That's your choice. However, that doesn't mean individuals making a different choice, and acting on normal human biological impulses which don't violate someone's rights are wrong.

That's a fiat declaration, which I reject wholesale. People are not paid to stop being people. They are paid for their work. We do not leave our biological imperatives at home. We do not put ourselves in boxes. We are who we are 100% of the time.

Wrong. You aren't talking about the ability to reason. You're actually eschewing the ability to reason. Reasoning would encompass not seeking to build social institutions that run afoul of normal human behavior; seeking to prop up those institutions which would severely disadvantage half the population to the benefit of the other half is not reasonable. The fact that you're unwilling to have a conversation about what is normal behavior, instead seeking to impose your own viewpoint about appropriateness based on your studies of the pathology of criminals by fiat declaration lends itself towards my argument, not yours.

We spend more time socializing at work than we do anywhere else, and spend more time with our co-workers. Normal human interaction doesn't go away. Workplace behavioral standards are in place because in order to legally absolve businesses, not for any other reason. There is nothing wrong with sexually pursuing someone at work.

We absolutely do have to define what is appropriate and what is inappropriate, because that's what the issue is about. And you don't get to make fiat declarations for the entire species about that those actually are. There is a discussion which needs to be had about exactly this, and the discussion needs to be inclusive of either the established legitimacy or illegitimacy of sexuality as transactional.

Bolding mine. Again, this is an admission, as much as you might not like it to be, that your area of expertise is in enforcement. Your talking about offender behaviors. This is an exceptionally prejudicial lens to demand we view the discussion through. I'll stop short of being dismissive, because there is value there; but your discipline lends itself far more towards patholization than anything else.

You'll have to qualify exactly what your training, experience, and education is in these regards; because it seems to be extraordinarily prejudicial in these regards. You've been trained in enforcement, not biological understanding. You've also attempted to create a strawman argument. You'll note that in each post I have taken labors to firmly state that women, like anyone else, have the absolute right to be free from assault. You've also, quite sneakily, tried to equate assault and harassment. There is no moral sameness there, and I reject that argument. The concept of what constitutes "harassment" is where the entire crux of this argument lies; and again, women won what feminists considered a major victory with the societal acceptance of sexuality as transactional in nature. If "kitty is power" is a legitimate statement, then the bar for what should be construed as unacceptable behavior rising to a problematic level of harassment is very high.

You are high on feelings and light on facts, my friend.