ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags aclu , civil liberties , title IX

Reply
Old 19th November 2018, 07:23 AM   #81
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Isn't sexual assault a crime? Shouldn't the police handle these cases?
Yes and yes. But title IX also covers non-criminal sexual harassment. So the real problem with his argument is that an issue being non-criminal isn't an excuse to abandon all concepts of due process.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:25 AM   #82
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yes and yes. But title IX also covers non-criminal sexual harassment. So the real problem with his argument is that an issue being non-criminal isn't an excuse to abandon all concepts of due process.
Sounds reasonable. Who's the "he" in your post, though?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:27 AM   #83
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Sounds reasonable. Who's the "he" in your post, though?
lomiller, since that's who you were quoting. I'm assuming gender, zhe can get mad at me if I guessed wrong.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:38 AM   #84
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yet more cluelessness.
These are not legal proceedings at all, so shelve what you’ve “learned” form your partisan hack op-eds and stop demanding that they should be treated as such.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:39 AM   #85
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
lomiller, since that's who you were quoting. I'm assuming gender, zhe can get mad at me if I guessed wrong.
That's what I thought but with all the discussions going on I wanted to make sure.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:46 AM   #86
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Isn't sexual assault a crime? Shouldn't the police handle these cases?
Some of them should, but by definition these are cases not reported to the police and therefore not being investigated criminally. The rules are not intended to be a substitute for criminal changes and should not be treated as such.

When it receives a complain the university needs a fair system to:
a) Decide if it’s something they need to refer to the police
b) Resolve the resulting conflict between students whether criminal charges are placed or not.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:52 AM   #87
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Some of them should, but by definition these are cases not reported to the police and therefore not being investigated criminally. The rules are not intended to be a substitute for criminal changes and should not be treated as such.

When it receives a complain the university needs a fair system to:
a) Decide if it’s something they need to refer to the police
b) Resolve the resulting conflict between students whether criminal charges are placed or not.
And if nothing is done, move down to the lynch mob, instead.

The issue is that I don't think it's a good idea to move this sort of thing down to a process with a less stringent standard until you get the result you want. Encourage people to report to the police, and let them handle these. If it's not a crime, then it's different, but some sort of due process should be respected anyway.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 08:00 AM   #88
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And if nothing is done, move down to the lynch mob, instead.
Looking at the preponderance of evidence is about as far from a “lynch mob” as you can get. It’s essentially saying investigate the complaint without any preconceived notion of which side we should the school should support.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 08:31 AM   #89
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,940
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Notably, the changes to the Regs were driven in part by court opinions holding that the existing procedures were unconstitutional.

See for example this opinion https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...017-09-25.html

“The Due Process Clause guarantees fundamental fairness to state university students facing long-term exclusion from the educational process. The Committee necessarily made a credibility determination and its failure to provide any form of confrontation of the accuser made the proceeding fundamentally unfair.”

It is a disgrace that the ACLU has totally abandoned promoting Constitutional safeguards designed to protect against governmental overreaching.
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
So the main complaint of the right wing nutbars is that the ACLU thinks standards used for criminal proceedings are not appropriate for these non-criminal proceedings. I guess that’s the type of idiocy you can expect from people who get their opinions fed to them by partisan op-eds.
Rule of So!

The opinion of the Sixth Circuit ain't an op-ed.

So grossly wrong and deliberately false
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 08:33 AM   #90
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Looking at the preponderance of evidence is about as far from a “lynch mob” as you can get. It’s essentially saying investigate the complaint without any preconceived notion of which side we should the school should support.
Finally, you're actually talking about the rules. But you still can't get it right. Schools are still allowed to use the preponderance of evidence standard.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 08:40 AM   #91
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Looking at the preponderance of evidence is about as far from a “lynch mob” as you can get. It’s essentially saying investigate the complaint without any preconceived notion of which side we should the school should support.
Did you read my post before you replied to it? I didn't say the standard is a lynch mob.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 08:48 AM   #92
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Finally, you're actually talking about the rules. But you still can't get it right. Schools are still allowed to use the preponderance of evidence standard.
You were the one bitching about this yesterday before you even found out what the ACLU’s position actually was. How in hell could there be any serious discussion reached before that, yet you right-wing wack-a-doodles were doing so anyway.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:00 AM   #93
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You were the one bitching about this yesterday before you even found out what the ACLU’s position actually was. How in hell could there be any serious discussion reached before that, yet you right-wing wack-a-doodles were doing so anyway.
The consistency of your errors is impressive. I was talking about the ACLU's actual position three days ago.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:00 AM   #94
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Did you read my post before you replied to it? I didn't say the standard is a lynch mob.
I’m just responding to what you wrote.

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
And if nothing is done, move down to the lynch mob, instead.
The existing standard, the one the ACLU supports is not “a lynch mob” it calls for looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively. The new standard essentially says “put rapists back into the very same classes as their victims and put other students at risk even thought the evidence says they are guilty”.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:02 AM   #95
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,800
Originally Posted by Bikewer View Post
Although this action by the current administration may be seen by some as a step towards “fairness”, I think one must deal with the many years of such cases being merely swept under the carpet, and the fact that victims often saw the futility of trying to report such crimes.
This is pretty well spot on.

There is potential to actively investigate accusations, and act appropriately. Apply criminal charges if needed, or use civil-court standards of evidence if criminal charges are not warranted. Report information, be transparent. Take accusations made by victims seriously, but allow the accused some manner of ability to defend themselves relevant to the legal action against them.

But somehow we never get there - there is a broad middle path that neither political party seems to want to walk on.

The "Dear Colleague" letter and the way its recommendations and requirements were implemented was problematic - Emily Yoffe hit that pretty well in a series of articles in Slate, starting with "The College Rape Overcorrection".

But now we have this new policy, which is also problematic in the other direction. The idea that harassment is not harassment unless it prevents the student from getting an education is far too high of a standard. Some very minor administrative actions (such as being moved to a different dormitory, or having ones' class schedule rearranged while still taking the same subjects) may not require the accused to know much about who or what they are accused of.

We have overcorrected in the other direction this time.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:03 AM   #96
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I’m just responding to what you wrote.


The existing standard, the one the ACLU supports is not “a lynch mob” it calls for looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively. The new standard essentially says “put rapists back into the very same classes as their victims and put other students at risk even thought the evidence says they are guilty”.
You're clearly not responding to what I wrote. I didn't say that the standard is a lynch mob. Even if you don't read my post for context, I am clearly saying that the lynch mob is if you don't get the desired result from that standard. It's a bit ridiculous when it's literally what's written in my post.

The point, since I have to spell it out, is that going for a lesser standard because the correct standard doesn't always work is a recipe for abuse.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:07 AM   #97
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I was talking about the ACLU's actual position three days ago.
Except you didn’t start posting there, you started before the ACLU's position was actually given.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...53&postcount=7

The posts you made subsequent to the actual ACLU statement are still nonsense
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:09 AM   #98
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The existing standard, the one the ACLU supports is not “a lynch mob” it calls for looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively.
No, actually, it doesn't. The single investigator model, the inability to cross examine accusers, depriving defendants of counsel, all of these things prevent looking at the evidence and weighing it objectively.

Quote:
The new standard essentially says “put rapists back into the very same classes as their victims and put other students at risk even thought the evidence says they are guilty”.
This is a very peculiar argument. If someone is actually a rapist, what should happen to them? They should be put in jail. Jail is how you protect people from rapists. Since even college student rapists don't generally rape their victims in classrooms, merely keeping them out of classrooms falls so far short of protecting anyone from rape it's laughable. And of course, nothing schools can do protects non-students from the risk of a rapist. Jail, on the other hand, does that. For rape, the proper remedy must be the criminal justice system. Trying to rely on schools as a substitute for criminal justice is destined to fail, no matter what standards you want to use.

And once again, since you STILL haven't clued in yet, the new rules still allow schools to use the preponderance of evidence standard.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:09 AM   #99
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,940
We have reached the point where letting the accused know what they are accused of is an overcorrection.

Wow
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:16 AM   #100
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Except you didn’t start posting there, you started before the ACLU's position was actually given.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...53&postcount=7

The posts you made subsequent to the actual ACLU statement are still nonsense
And you fail again. Let's do a little reading comprehension exercise:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused, I think it should be pretty obvious the ACLU would oppose them.
Perhaps. But they don't.
What do you think the "they" in my post refers to? Grammatically, there's some ambiguity here, but in context it's not hard to figure out. Does it refer to the ACLU? No, that wouldn't make any sense. The only "don't" that would go along with that is the ACLU don't oppose the regulations. But the ACLU does oppose the new regulations, that was made clear in the opening post and no one has since suggested otherwise. So me saying that the ACLU doesn't oppose the regulations would be nonsensical in context, regardless of why the ACLU opposed them.

No, the "they" in my post refers to the regulations. What do they not do? They do not inappropriately favor the accused. Do I need to know anything about the ACLU's position in order to conclude that? No, I do not. I need only know about the regulations themselves.

You're still batting 1000.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

Last edited by Ziggurat; 19th November 2018 at 09:19 AM.
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:17 AM   #101
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You're clearly not responding to what I wrote. I didn't say that the standard is a lynch mob. Even if you don't read my post for context, I am clearly saying that the lynch mob is if you don't get the desired result from that standard. It's a bit ridiculous when it's literally what's written in my post.
The perhaps you should clearly explain what you think this has to do with the ACLU’s support for the standard that was previously in place (preponderance of the evidence).

Originally Posted by Belz... View Post

The point, since I have to spell it out, is that going for a lesser standard because the correct standard doesn't always work is a recipe for abuse.
If you are not going to argue that having the university look at the preponderance of the evidence is improper, what exactly are you saying here?

Also, the discussion isn't about whether the standard should be lowered. it's about whether it should be raised so that rapists and people guilty of sexual assault continue to attend classes with the victims in spite of the preponderance of the evidence saying they were guilty.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:26 AM   #102
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
The perhaps you should clearly explain what you think this has to do with the ACLU’s support for the standard that was previously in place (preponderance of the evidence).
Impressive. You submitted your post even after reading the second part of mine that specifically answered that.

Quote:
If you are not going to argue that having the university look at the preponderance of the evidence is improper, what exactly are you saying here?
It's going to be difficult to make it any clearer. I don't get it. Usually you're pretty sharp.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:28 AM   #103
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
What do you think the "they" in my post refers to? Grammatically, there's some ambiguity here
If you are worried about the way people interpret your ambiguous posts stop making ambiguous posts and say what you actuality mean instead of trying to insure wiggle room to backtrack later.
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But the ACLU does oppose the new regulations, that was made clear in the opening post and no one has since suggested otherwise. So me saying that the ACLU doesn't oppose the regulations would be nonsensical in context, regardless of why the ACLU opposed them.
You were assuming the ACLU was endorsing regulations that “inappropriately favor the accused” long before the ACLU position was ever posted. Apparently your only reason for doing so was that a partisan right wing op-ed said it was so.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:37 AM   #104
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Impressive. You submitted your post even after reading the second part of mine that specifically answered that.



It's going to be difficult to make it any clearer. I don't get it. Usually you're pretty sharp.
You posts genuinely make no sense in the context of this thread. We are discussing if the existing standard (preponderance of the evidence) is suitable and whether the new standard (beyond reasonable doubt) is inappropriate in this context as the ACLU suggests. No one is arguing for lowering standards, and the “lowest” standard being considered is whether giving both sides equal hearing with no presupposition of which the university should side with.

So again you need to explain why are bringing “lowering standards” or “lynch mobs” into the discussion because I have no idea what you are trying to say.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 09:56 AM   #105
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You posts genuinely make no sense in the context of this thread. We are discussing if the existing standard (preponderance of the evidence) is suitable and whether the new standard (beyond reasonable doubt) is inappropriate in this context as the ACLU suggests. No one is arguing for lowering standards, and the “lowest” standard being considered is whether giving both sides equal hearing with no presupposition of which the university should side with.
I didn't say they were lowring their standards. I'm saying that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the correct standard for sexual assault, even if it makes it a lot harder to prove the claim. It sucks, but giving the accused less than a full presumption of innocence is wrong. That's the point of my hyperbole: why not take the lowest possible standard, if it gets the job done? It was facetious, but it was supposed to make a clear point.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:01 AM   #106
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Umm... you realize that your link is about sexual harassment of students by professors, and not by fellow students, right? Tell me one change in these regulations that would have had any substantive impact on the events described in your links.
That was a response to the poster who seemed to think the issue on campus is what has been called "regret sex." And it's an example of how behavior can be severely wrong without being prosecutable as a crime.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:09 AM   #107
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,940
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
If you are worried about the way people interpret your ambiguous posts stop making ambiguous posts and say what you actuality mean instead of trying to insure wiggle room to backtrack later.


You were assuming the ACLU was endorsing regulations that “inappropriately favor the accused” long before the ACLU position was ever posted. Apparently your only reason for doing so was that a partisan right wing op-ed said it was so.
Is this a poe? they released their position before this thread was posted, as linked in the OP.

Are you contending they issued a position different than the position expressed in their original release?

Well they are not. Blown away that every argument you have made in this thread is spectacularly wrong, I assume it has to be intentional.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:11 AM   #108
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I didn't say they were lowring their standards. I'm saying that "beyond reasonable doubt" is the correct standard for sexual assault, even if it makes it a lot harder to prove the claim. It sucks, but giving the accused less than a full presumption of innocence is wrong. That's the point of my hyperbole: why not take the lowest possible standard, if it gets the job done? It was facetious, but it was supposed to make a clear point.
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal trials, where the full power of the state can be used to deprive you of your property, your liberty and even your life. It is not the standard of proof in civil suits or administrative proceedings or even a police traffic citation. And even under the proposed new rules, the new standard would be "clear and convincing evidence" instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt."
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:14 AM   #109
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
That was a response to the poster who seemed to think the issue on campus is what has been called "regret sex."
But that very much is an issue. It's not the only issue, as your link shows, but still an issue.

Quote:
And it's an example of how behavior can be severely wrong without being prosecutable as a crime.
Sure, but it's not relevant to these new changes, since they wouldn't make any difference in that case.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:14 AM   #110
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,487
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Dumb thread is dumb. If the regulations inappropriate favor the accused
As far as I can tell, the regulations do not inappropriate [sic] favor the accused. Is there something in the regulations that makes you think otherwise?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:25 AM   #111
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You were assuming the ACLU was endorsing regulations that “inappropriately favor the accused” long before the ACLU position was ever posted. Apparently your only reason for doing so was that a partisan right wing op-ed said it was so.
Your track record of perfect failure continues apace.

That post had nothing to do with the ACLU's actual position. I accepted your hypothetical of what might motivate the ACLU to oppose (not support) regulations IF the rules inappropriately favored the accused. That was you positing the hypothetical, not me, and I agreed with you, given the premise of your hypothetical. How is it even possible for you to be upset with me for agreeing with you on that point? Talk about an own goal.

But it's merely a hypothetical since the rules do not inappropriately favor the accused. That's the real point of my post, and that point, again, has no dependence on the ACLU's position.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:27 AM   #112
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,415
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
And even under the proposed new rules, the new standard would be "clear and convincing evidence" instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt."
No. Under the new rules, schools can choose between "preponderance of evidence" and "clear and convincing evidence".
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:36 AM   #113
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
"Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal trials, where the full power of the state can be used to deprive you of your property, your liberty and even your life. It is not the standard of proof in civil suits or administrative proceedings or even a police traffic citation. And even under the proposed new rules, the new standard would be "clear and convincing evidence" instead of the current "preponderance of the evidence," not "beyond reasonable doubt."
I don't know, being found guilty of sexual assault by a university could have some serious consequences on your future life.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 10:57 AM   #114
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,940
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
There aren't very many organizations out there that should make you reassess your own views if you ever find yourself on the other side of an issue from them. The ACLU is one.
"I've been cautious, and hesitant, and suspicious, when people have argued that the ACLU is no longer recognizably the ACLU. Starting to thing I was wrong."

Link
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:07 AM   #115
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,091
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't know, being found guilty of sexual assault by a university could have some serious consequences on your future life.
So could losing a million-dollar civil suit. So could getting fired from your job. So could losing a child custody battle. The fact is that it is ultimately a dispute between two private parties, which the law treats differently from criminal trials. The college can't lock you up.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:09 AM   #116
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,940
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
So could losing a million-dollar civil suit. So could getting fired from your job. So could losing a child custody battle. The fact is that it is ultimately a dispute between two private parties, which the law treats differently from criminal trials. The college can't lock you up.
many, many many colleges, including the University at issue in the Sixth circuit opinion that I summarized and linked and that has been totally ignored in this thread involve State Actors, not two private entities.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:10 AM   #117
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As far as I can tell, the regulations do not inappropriate [sic] favor the accused.
You are entitled to your opinion, but given track record I’m farm more likely to trust the ACLU’s opinion. You (And Zig and TBD) mostly just seem to read whatever right wing op-ed you are directed to and just accept that opinion as your own without ever apply any real thought to it.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:14 AM   #118
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I don't know, being found guilty of sexual assault by a university could have some serious consequences on your future life.
More than being sued for wrongful death?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:17 AM   #119
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,940
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You are entitled to your opinion, but given track record I’m farm more likely to trust the ACLU’s opinion. You (And Zig and TBD) mostly just seem to read whatever right wing op-ed you are directed to and just accept that opinion as your own without ever apply any real thought to it.
Or, ya know, opinions from actual left wing commentators (like Popehat) and actual opinions from actual Courts of Appeal.

But you just keep on ad homining the **** out of the thread, i need a laugh.
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:17 AM   #120
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,641
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
So could losing a million-dollar civil suit. So could getting fired from your job. So could losing a child custody battle. The fact is that it is ultimately a dispute between two private parties, which the law treats differently from criminal trials. The college can't lock you up.
No but you could end up being followed with the label for the rest of your life because of a lower standard of evidence.

Sexual crimes are not viewed like other crimes.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
More than being sued for wrongful death?
I'm not even sure whether the answer is yes or no, to be honest.

Anyway, let the justice system handle crimes.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.