I don't see why it has to be hundreds of thousands to be an issue personally. After reading comments from esteemed female judges no less stating that they are ashamed to be part of the spanish judicial system I can recognize that there is a problem.
The Dean of Barcelona's judges, Maria Sanahuja quotes...
"The massive detention of men for scarcely any reason is a characteristic of totalitarian countries."
"The Integral Law on Gender Violence is causing a repugnant violation of fundamental rights in Spain."
"It has provoked a sort of madness in the law that generates abuse, the elimination of the requirement of proof during the legal process, and the absence of the presumption of innocence."
"All of us are responsible for the Law continuing like this, by which we have caused enormous pain to tens of thousands of men."
Skepticism enough to look at who was making the claims; finding that several spanish sociologists have also stated that a massive bias exists, many lawyers, and many individuals. I think what you are experiencing isn't skepticism but denial.
Wizards has said Bridge from Below isn't really a magic card and so the current position of banning GGT and Dread Return while leaving it legal is strange.
What do you mean isn't a real magic card? Why would that prevent them from banning it?
Unban Second Sunrise and Green Sun's Zenith. Ban Remand and Urza's Power Plant. Format fixed.
Second sunrise is a profoundly unfun card and eggs or whatever it was called actually convinced several players trying out modern for the first time to say "hell no" to the format. We almost lost our one modern FNM a month and it was only after considerable begging/pleading to all parties involved that it resumed.
Wasn't it banned because it created "toolkit" style green decks. The format has changed since then and it could possibly be at the right power level now. We already have Chord of Calling and that seems like the much better tutor for silver bullets.
Tiax-It interests me that a group of women claiming they face discrimination would constitute in and of itself an argument that I would have to somehow counter but groups of men claiming they face discrimination is considered so lacking in credibility so as to warrant skepticism.
It's like this Tiax, How much **** is the acceptable amount of **** in your coffee? 1 ounce or 10 ounces? If the system always gives custody by default to the mother that's **** in your coffee, if men are second class citizens and a women's testimony is privileged over theirs it's **** in your coffee, if the default is guilty until proven innocent that's **** in your coffee. There are things we can control within a free society and things we can't. Anyone can commit X disgusting injustice to anyone in the community sadly and any claim to the contrary is a ****ing illusion. However how our laws are written is something that we as a free society DO HAVE CONTROL OVER!
One giant glaring problem with the feminist argument I keep seeing is that we cannot KNOW what's going on in private and thus it's really hard to convict men of DV or SA. Their solution is to try to bias the system against men to make it easier to get a conviction and in their sick minds create "social justice". This is as sane as me deciding that since I can't stop terrorism I'll engage in it myself and call the resulting mountain of injustice "equality". The belief that what random criminals do and how society behaves itself exist int he same moral space seems to be a product of a totalitarian mindset.
When you realize there is no acceptable amount of **** in your coffee, you can grasp that feminist jurisprudence is really just sexism and misandry written into law.
Ya, I transitioned from Standard to Modern and I'm loving it. I still ask others what standard is like and all I here is complaints about it being stale and only b or u devotion is playable.
Tiax-That's one states law, not all states. There have been recorded cases where rape shield laws were deemed to have violated the rights of the accused.
So rape shield laws can in theory be done right, but often are not, in regards to protecting the accuser but not in protecting the accused from having their history used against them.
Ladyluck, Blinking Spirit-Actually the sexual history of the accused is admissable as evidence in a rape trial. Isn't behavior that forms a pattern admissable in any other case?
Originally Posted by joande Blinking Spirit-I dont believe the bar should be raised but lowering the standard of proof so that only a preponderance of evidence is required, 3 out of 5 jurors to convict, allowing testimony from experts who have never meet the accuser or know anything at all about them to testify to effectively "women never lie" is a lowering of the bar, in a very real way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blinking Spirit But nobody here has actually advocated for that. When they do, I'll argue against them.
The thing is those are real world events that have occured! I'm arguing they are unjust and represent a real civil rights issue.
How would you feel if you were falsely accused by a serial false accuser and jail bound because you couldn't bring up that persons long history of lying about exactly that? I have no interest in anyone being victimized but how the hell is that not throwing someone under the bus?
Blinking Spirit-I dont believe the bar should be raised but lowering the standard of proof so that only a preponderance of evidence is required, 3 out of 5 jurors to convict, allowing testimony from experts who have never meet the accuser or know anything at all about them to testify to effectively "women never lie" is a lowering of the bar, in a very real way.
One of the things that really irks me about rape shield laws is the accuser could have falsely accused a thousand other people and that fact is still inadmissable if they accuse you.
Now the Obama administration has promised to take more action to (among other things) increase the rates of convictions in the the college tribunals, I'm honestly afraid of what that means.
Aren't you the guy who accepts everything on nutball tumblrs as gospel?
It is true that MRAs use a variety of social media and have not had fifty plus years of classes to indoctrinate, billions of dollars in government aid, and a media eager to spread our message unquestioningly.
Senori-The point is that BS called you out on creating vague straw men of people who don't exist and then bashing them, and you responded by simply restating that you strongly believe that your straw man will be true someday. That's the definition of a delusion; a belief without evidence, where the evidence is strongly to the contrary
I would call it pattern recognition but clearly you disagree.
Jaclyn Friedman, the author widely credited with coining the term "enthusiastic consent," puts it this way on her website: "What if, instead of just the absence of 'no,' an enthusiastic 'yes' was required as a standard for sexual consent?"
Like this?
Ya, name calling, you sure put me in my place.
(b) that you seem to think other people can decide for you whether or not you're giving consent, and your own opinion on the matter may be disregarded.
If you have a gun to your head and say "yes" it is rape, right?
If you say "Yes" when someone asks you if you want to have sex but it isn't enthusiastic, is it rape? NO!
I honestly believe an attempt will be made to conflate the two. I can already see it, "but Men are big and scary and she thought he would hurt her if she didn't say Yes".
And I never said that another person could define consent for you, but it is the law that defines what consent is, not the individual (any of them) after the fact.
Tiax-Not really, your false idol worship aside, there has been a steady decline in due process for men accused of rape even though the definition has been expanded along with the forms of "proof" that will be accepted.
Feminists have done exactly this with harassment definitions every chance they have gotten and have stated their intent to do the same with rape.
The Dean of Barcelona's judges, Maria Sanahuja quotes...
"The massive detention of men for scarcely any reason is a characteristic of totalitarian countries."
"The Integral Law on Gender Violence is causing a repugnant violation of fundamental rights in Spain."
"It has provoked a sort of madness in the law that generates abuse, the elimination of the requirement of proof during the legal process, and the absence of the presumption of innocence."
"All of us are responsible for the Law continuing like this, by which we have caused enormous pain to tens of thousands of men."
What do you mean isn't a real magic card? Why would that prevent them from banning it?
Second sunrise is a profoundly unfun card and eggs or whatever it was called actually convinced several players trying out modern for the first time to say "hell no" to the format. We almost lost our one modern FNM a month and it was only after considerable begging/pleading to all parties involved that it resumed.
Wasn't it banned because it created "toolkit" style green decks. The format has changed since then and it could possibly be at the right power level now. We already have Chord of Calling and that seems like the much better tutor for silver bullets.
For cards that could be unbanned...
Modern-Bitterblossom, Wild Nacatl, Golgari Grave-Troll,and Ancestral Vision.
Legacy-Earthcraft, Mind Twist, and Mind's Desire.
Vintage-Library of Alexandria and Gifts Ungiven could be unrestricted.
It's like this Tiax, How much **** is the acceptable amount of **** in your coffee? 1 ounce or 10 ounces? If the system always gives custody by default to the mother that's **** in your coffee, if men are second class citizens and a women's testimony is privileged over theirs it's **** in your coffee, if the default is guilty until proven innocent that's **** in your coffee. There are things we can control within a free society and things we can't. Anyone can commit X disgusting injustice to anyone in the community sadly and any claim to the contrary is a ****ing illusion. However how our laws are written is something that we as a free society DO HAVE CONTROL OVER!
One giant glaring problem with the feminist argument I keep seeing is that we cannot KNOW what's going on in private and thus it's really hard to convict men of DV or SA. Their solution is to try to bias the system against men to make it easier to get a conviction and in their sick minds create "social justice". This is as sane as me deciding that since I can't stop terrorism I'll engage in it myself and call the resulting mountain of injustice "equality". The belief that what random criminals do and how society behaves itself exist int he same moral space seems to be a product of a totalitarian mindset.
When you realize there is no acceptable amount of **** in your coffee, you can grasp that feminist jurisprudence is really just sexism and misandry written into law.
Tiax-Considering we were discussing feminist jurisprudence, and this is an example of what that leads to, it seems appropriate.
So rape shield laws can in theory be done right, but often are not, in regards to protecting the accuser but not in protecting the accused from having their history used against them.
Originally Posted by joande
Blinking Spirit-I dont believe the bar should be raised but lowering the standard of proof so that only a preponderance of evidence is required, 3 out of 5 jurors to convict, allowing testimony from experts who have never meet the accuser or know anything at all about them to testify to effectively "women never lie" is a lowering of the bar, in a very real way.
One of the things that really irks me about rape shield laws is the accuser could have falsely accused a thousand other people and that fact is still inadmissable if they accuse you.
Now the Obama administration has promised to take more action to (among other things) increase the rates of convictions in the the college tribunals, I'm honestly afraid of what that means.
PS-Anyone can be falsely accused by anyone.
Hardly, but even tumblr and reddit can give you links to other sources.
It is true that MRAs use a variety of social media and have not had fifty plus years of classes to indoctrinate, billions of dollars in government aid, and a media eager to spread our message unquestioningly.
Not that MRAs across the world are not finding ways to use the MSM too...http://frankfurter-erklaerung.de/2014/01/fur-eine-ausge***ene-berichterstattung-zur-gleichstellungspolitik-offener-brief-an-den-deutschen-presserat/
I would call it pattern recognition but clearly you disagree.
Jaclyn Friedman, the author widely credited with coining the term "enthusiastic consent," puts it this way on her website: "What if, instead of just the absence of 'no,' an enthusiastic 'yes' was required as a standard for sexual consent?"
Like this?
Ya, name calling, you sure put me in my place.
If you have a gun to your head and say "yes" it is rape, right?
If you say "Yes" when someone asks you if you want to have sex but it isn't enthusiastic, is it rape? NO!
I honestly believe an attempt will be made to conflate the two. I can already see it, "but Men are big and scary and she thought he would hurt her if she didn't say Yes".
And I never said that another person could define consent for you, but it is the law that defines what consent is, not the individual (any of them) after the fact.
Feminists have done exactly this with harassment definitions every chance they have gotten and have stated their intent to do the same with rape.
Heres a case that is far from rare...http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/01/serial_rape_accuser_sara_ylen.html
She put multiple men away based on nothing but her testimony and now has been shown to be liar.
Shes a serial false accuser many feminist activists just falsely accuse one man...http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/in-academia-false-claims-of-rape-and-harassment-are-now-employed-by-activists-as-tools-of-social-change/
It seems like every time I get online theres a new story in this vane.
It honestly amazes me people just accept the agitator propaganda that gets put out there and never research these things themselves.