I quoted what I was responding to. If people want to read the whole post it’s right there in the thread, and you haven’t shown how my ‘selectively quoting’ actually removed any relevant context, so as far as I can tell you’re just grasping at straws.
The analogies work fine. The fact that the behavior is obviously unacceptable when discussing men, but supposedly ‘grey area’ when discussing women is exactly the point of the comparison, not some flaw. Adding the homosexual element makes them work better, ESPECIALLY when applied to heterosexual men, because it makes it clear that the advance is unwanted in the first place. Some men have a hard time conceptualizing a woman they aren’t attracted to (at least in a ‘slumming it’ way) hitting on them, but I’ve never seen one of those types have a hard time realizing how much they’d dislike some dude treating them the way they treat women.
What marginal cases exactly? I keep hearing people say “what about the ambiguous cases that are all over the place”, but there’s just crickets chirping when they’re supposed to list them.
If you want to take a post written in normal English that’s not a personal attack, then read it in a weird way to make it into a personal attack, then violate board rules, a moderator can handle the situation. I’ll continue posting in English, however.
Eyewitness testimony is also notoriously unreliable. As is memory. This is a well known fact. Learnt after several major miscarriages of Justice. Even, or perhaps, especially when a person is giving evidence they honestly believe happened.
Still, testimony is a form of “evidence” – however, it may be determined to be bad or weak or invalid evidence, but it is not “no evidence”. But at least most of us do not subscribe to shooting down someone on just one mere say-so… I hope.
Another thing that comes to my mind about these expressions from the group of women is that they may be thinking about what I’ll call the Franken Syndrome – a fear of having men who were or are their allies in what they consider the Big Picture scheme of things, washed away over a zero tolerance policy for individual conduct. They may just fear that the next one to fall may be someone *they *care about or consider one of the Good Ones.
Depends on whether 19 of the accusers said nothing until the accusations went viral., and the accusesd was not the same person, but anyone down the hall who happened to be convenient.
No twenty women are not one woman.
But you have twenty alleging twenty different incidences, not twenty women and one incident.
So effectively it is one woman’s allegations.
Not twenty women witnessing one alleged incident.
Does it cast doubt on the accused?
Yes it does.
Does it warrant suspicion of the accused?
Yes it does.
Does it warrant looking into the allegations?
Yes it does.
It doesn’t however warrant the suspension of a fair trial before any sort of conviction.
Here’s a case that made big news in Canada recently.
What was proved ,was lies, collusion, and “outright deception” on the part of the accusers.
Not guilt on the part of the accused.
This is why a fair trial is called for.