The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post Reply
User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:16 pm

Hermit wrote:
devogue wrote:...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.
I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.
These are not mutually exclusive concepts. One may oppose rape, and also oppose baseless, stale rape allegations from 13+ years ago. These are concepts that apply to all legal issues, not just rape. It's not particular to rape. I am against people being punched in the face without legal excuse or justification. However, I am also against people reporting their alleged punch in the face from Jimmy's Pub and Eatery in 2004, at a time when memories are 13 years old, witnesses are inaccessible, and the capacity to refute or defend the allegations has significantly deteriorated by nearly a decade and a half of water under the bridge.

Most everyone understands that rape is an injustice. I don't know of anyone who supports rape. The legal system punishes it strongly. People who hear about a woman being raped general talk about the perpetrator deserving castration, life imprisonment, and some even the death penalty. It's not as if the cultural zeitgeist in western countries is "ho, hum, rape - no big deal."

Moreover, it's not about "men being regarded as predators." Making a rape charge against a man is an accusation that the person is not only a criminal, but a violent criminal - a rapist. It is the accusation of a crime of significant moral turpitude, and has the possibility, for most people, to significantly injure that person's reputation and other injuries. If a person tells people that 42 is a rapist, it's slander. If a person publishes a writing in that regard, it's libel. These are serious accusations, with serious consequences to the person being accused.

So, the system has to be set up in a way that takes that significant interest into account. Accusation of a crime like that is sort of like someone alleging David Blaine burgled my house and kicked my dog in 2004. If he did that, oughtn't it have been reported shortly after it occurred? If not, why not? That's not a comparison of the significance of the crimes, as rape is more serious than burglary and dog kicking -- it's the rationale.

Here's the thing. None of us was there in 2004 with David Blaine and his accuser, if they were even in the same room together then. We simply don't know. We can't know. So, the only accurate position for any of us to take is "I don't know." So, the question becomes, how are these things to be evaluated. Normally, the answer to that is "based on the evidence." So, what's the evidence? If all we have is the accusation, then all the work still lies ahead. Even if an accuser is honest and trustworthy, we still cannot know if the accusation is true, because an honest and trustworthy person can: (a) have a faulty memory, (b) be operating under a different set of definitions, (c) be telling the truth, but still be wrong, (d) have conditions which create or alter memories, among many other things.

Also, in a rape case, it's possible for both parties to be telling the truth, and for the woman to have not consented to sex and thereby believe that she was raped. Was she drunk? How drunk? Was she not consenting internally, but otherwise seemingly agreeable from Blaine's perspective? Did she consent to much of the sex, but not a particular act, so that Blaine was under a misapprehension of the degree of consent?

How do we assess state of mind and the details of two people's sexual encounter, if any, 13 years after the fact? It becomes much more difficult.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:37 pm

Forty Two wrote:If all we have is the accusation, then all the work still lies ahead. Even if an accuser is honest and trustworthy, we still cannot know if the accusation is true, because an honest and trustworthy person can: (a) have a faulty memory, (b) be operating under a different set of definitions, (c) be telling the truth, but still be wrong, (d) have conditions which create or alter memories, among many other things.
Under what definition would covertly drugging a woman with something like Rohypnol in order to have sex with her be anything but rape? If Prince is telling the truth, that is exactly what Blaine did.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:43 pm

devogue wrote:
Hermit wrote:
devogue wrote:...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.
I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.
The terrible dilemma we face is that after a short amount of time evidence like traces of rape drugs in a victim's system, bruising and physical injuries, semen and other DNA evidence (scratches on perpetrators , skin under nails of victims etc) all disappear - receipts and corroborating evidence like CCTV footage are wiped and disappear with time.

It really does often come down to one person's word against another and if that is the case do we disbelieve a potential victim who claims tremendous injury and trauma and quite possibly magnify that trauma, or do we disbelieve an alleged perpetrator who will then face years of imprisonment and a destroyed life? It's a genuinely horrendous dilemma.
There is no one answer to this question of who "we" believe. Some people who "know" David Blaine and trust him will say that they know him well, and can't believe he'd possibly rape a woman. Some people who know him, but hate his guts, will say "...yep, sounds like Blaine alright." Some people who know the accuser will say they trust her, and they "know" she wouldn't lie. And, others who think less of her will say "I don't know... I don't trust her..." And all of them will be pretty much just drawing a conclusion based on preconceived notions of who the person is, and they're entitled to think what they want.

As for the legal issue, well, if it's one person's word against another person's word without any evidence beyond that available, then there can be no conviction ever. If the system was to allow a conviction, then we would have guilt by accusation. It doesn't matter how trustworthy women are in general, and how rare liars are. Convictions must be based on evidence.
devogue wrote:
I humbly suggest that such incredibly serious allegations, long after the event, be handled in confidence by the proper authorities. Consider how much better it would be if David Blaine's alleged victim could at first put on record her claim with the police, detailing his modus operandi, thus laying a foundation for possible future prosecution.

Two years later another alleged victim of Blaine comes forward - she doesn't know about the initial claim against him. The police take a statement and see that there are striking similarities betwen the alleged attacks, to the point where a successful prosecution can be considered.

If this scenario happened as a matter of course more women would hopefully report historic rapes because they would hope that previous or future victims could safely report their experiences.

As it is, Blaine has been accused of drugging and anally raping a woman. If ten other women come forward and say they were drugged and anally raped are they telling the truth or are they basing their accounts on the original alleged victim's statement that has been reported in detail in the media?
In the article I read about the Prince accusation against Blaine, she recounts being invited to his house and given a drink, and then having sex in a way where she felt out-of-it. She said she didn't remember much of it, but she did remembers agreeing to kiss him, and then being in bed, and then the anal sex, which she says she never had before. She explains why she did not go to the police, and it was because she did not think she had been raped. She explained that despite being like 23 years old, she thought rape meant that someone drags you into the bushes, not just being under the influence.

On the night in question, when she showed up to Blaine's place she says two other people were there. It's now 13 years on, if this was reported earlier, we might be able to find out who they were. This was a cocktail party with two other people in the room, and she says Blaine took her into the bedroom where she finished her drink, and then he fucked her. Wouldn't it be interesting and relevant to know what the two other people in the place were doing while she was being raped in the next room? What happened when she came out? How did she get home?

The story I read lacks detail in that regard. It goes from her being fucked in the ass, to her thinking about it the next day on a modeling shoot, which she made on time early in the morning. We'd need more.

Otherwise, even based on her own story in the papers, we don't know what happened. Was the drink spiked? With what? Was it just booze? Did she have more than one drink? Had she been drinking before she arrived? Did she interact with the other people in the house when she came out of the bedroom? Were they suspicious of something? Would they have said "she looked scared?" Or would they say "she came out smiling and laughing...?"

That's why old allegations are so difficult. What are we supposed to do with these allegations? She said she's coming out now to "expose" David Blaine, and whether he's convicted of anything is up to the police. Well, that's nice, but as we have seen in other cases, such a motivation can be for different reasons -- Jian Ghomeshi comes to mind - where Ghomeshi was accused by three women, and it came to light that all of them were lying - proved in court - all lying, and there was evidence shown that the women colluded in order to punish Jian ghomeshi for being a dickhead - they wanted him to pay. But the rape allegations were false.

So, it happens, and it doesn't matter if one's reaction is "what about the menz" or some reaction that the cultural zeitgeist focuses too much on the troubles of the poor men and and not enough on the poor women. All that is irrelevant to the fact that when an accusation is made, the truth can only be evaluated based on the evidence. What else can we do?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:43 pm

devogue wrote:
Hermit wrote:
devogue wrote:...if more women come forward with impossible to prove/disprove claims then the weight and pressure of impossible to prove/disprove claims will become the truth.
I'm beginning to think this is a great concept.

No. Wait. Let me rephrase that. I wish the people who so volubly complain about the injustice of men being regarded as sexual predators without the prerequisite guilty verdict in a proper court of law would expend a proportionate effort on expressing their opinions about the six out of seven rapes that don't even get reported, let alone result of a conviction, mindful that 93% of the perpetrators are male.
The terrible dilemma we face is that after a short amount of time evidence like traces of rape drugs in a victim's system, bruising and physical injuries, semen and other DNA evidence (scratches on perpetrators , skin under nails of victims etc) all disappear - receipts and corroborating evidence like CCTV footage are wiped and disappear with time.

It really does often come down to one person's word against another and if that is the case do we disbelieve a potential victim who claims tremendous injury and trauma and quite possibly magnify that trauma, or do we disbelieve an alleged perpetrator who will then face years of imprisonment and a destroyed life? It's a genuinely horrendous dilemma.
There is no one answer to this question of who "we" believe. Some people who "know" David Blaine and trust him will say that they know him well, and can't believe he'd possibly rape a woman. Some people who know him, but hate his guts, will say "...yep, sounds like Blaine alright." Some people who know the accuser will say they trust her, and they "know" she wouldn't lie. And, others who think less of her will say "I don't know... I don't trust her..." And all of them will be pretty much just drawing a conclusion based on preconceived notions of who the person is, and they're entitled to think what they want.

As for the legal issue, well, if it's one person's word against another person's word without any evidence beyond that available, then there can be no conviction ever. If the system was to allow a conviction, then we would have guilt by accusation. It doesn't matter how trustworthy women are in general, and how rare liars are. Convictions must be based on evidence.
devogue wrote:
I humbly suggest that such incredibly serious allegations, long after the event, be handled in confidence by the proper authorities. Consider how much better it would be if David Blaine's alleged victim could at first put on record her claim with the police, detailing his modus operandi, thus laying a foundation for possible future prosecution.

Two years later another alleged victim of Blaine comes forward - she doesn't know about the initial claim against him. The police take a statement and see that there are striking similarities betwen the alleged attacks, to the point where a successful prosecution can be considered.

If this scenario happened as a matter of course more women would hopefully report historic rapes because they would hope that previous or future victims could safely report their experiences.

As it is, Blaine has been accused of drugging and anally raping a woman. If ten other women come forward and say they were drugged and anally raped are they telling the truth or are they basing their accounts on the original alleged victim's statement that has been reported in detail in the media?
In the article I read about the Prince accusation against Blaine, she recounts being invited to his house and given a drink, and then having sex in a way where she felt out-of-it. She said she didn't remember much of it, but she did remembers agreeing to kiss him, and then being in bed, and then the anal sex, which she says she never had before. She explains why she did not go to the police, and it was because she did not think she had been raped. She explained that despite being like 23 years old, she thought rape meant that someone drags you into the bushes, not just being under the influence.

On the night in question, when she showed up to Blaine's place she says two other people were there. It's now 13 years on, if this was reported earlier, we might be able to find out who they were. This was a cocktail party with two other people in the room, and she says Blaine took her into the bedroom where she finished her drink, and then he fucked her. Wouldn't it be interesting and relevant to know what the two other people in the place were doing while she was being raped in the next room? What happened when she came out? How did she get home?

The story I read lacks detail in that regard. It goes from her being fucked in the ass, to her thinking about it the next day on a modeling shoot, which she made on time early in the morning. We'd need more.

Otherwise, even based on her own story in the papers, we don't know what happened. Was the drink spiked? With what? Was it just booze? Did she have more than one drink? Had she been drinking before she arrived? Did she interact with the other people in the house when she came out of the bedroom? Were they suspicious of something? Would they have said "she looked scared?" Or would they say "she came out smiling and laughing...?"

That's why old allegations are so difficult. What are we supposed to do with these allegations? She said she's coming out now to "expose" David Blaine, and whether he's convicted of anything is up to the police. Well, that's nice, but as we have seen in other cases, such a motivation can be for different reasons -- Jian Ghomeshi comes to mind - where Ghomeshi was accused by three women, and it came to light that all of them were lying - proved in court - all lying, and there was evidence shown that the women colluded in order to punish Jian ghomeshi for being a dickhead - they wanted him to pay. But the rape allegations were false.

So, it happens, and it doesn't matter if one's reaction is "what about the menz" or some reaction that the cultural zeitgeist focuses too much on the troubles of the poor men and and not enough on the poor women. All that is irrelevant to the fact that when an accusation is made, the truth can only be evaluated based on the evidence. What else can we do?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:52 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Forty Two wrote:If all we have is the accusation, then all the work still lies ahead. Even if an accuser is honest and trustworthy, we still cannot know if the accusation is true, because an honest and trustworthy person can: (a) have a faulty memory, (b) be operating under a different set of definitions, (c) be telling the truth, but still be wrong, (d) have conditions which create or alter memories, among many other things.
Under what definition would covertly drugging a woman with something like Rohypnol in order to have sex with her be anything but rape? If Prince is telling the truth, that is exactly what Blaine did.
Well, no, because nobody was able to test the drink, or get a warrant to search Blaine's place to find Rohypnol or any other drug. She can't know what as in the drink, can she?

But, as I noted, one issue with this being an old allegation is that memories can be faulty. How drunk was she? How much did she actually drink? What was her demeanor? How did she participate? Was she "drugged" or "tipsy?"

If Prince is telling the truth, she met Blaine at a bar or something where there were a lot of people. He paid her a lot of attention, and got her number. He texted her the next day to invite her over to where he was staying, and there were other people there. He invited her in, made her a drink, and she drank it. She does not say she blacked out and woke up the next day. She says he said "kiss me" which she did, and they got into bed and she remembers him being behind her and fucking her anally. She remembers that afterward he complimented her tits, but "didn't even kiss me" afterward. In the article I read she said she didn't consider it rape at the time.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:13 pm

I don't know what article you read.
“I followed him, and we went into the bedroom, and it’s dark. I told him right away when he texted me that I was working tomorrow. So I was thinking maybe we would have a sort of intimate conversation somewhere else for five or 10 minutes. But he spun around quite quickly and said, ‘Kiss me.’ I did kiss him. And then he said, ‘Finish your drink’ and took the glass from me and put it on the table, and that’s really the last thing I remember.

“At some point, I was on the bed, face-forward, and he was behind me. I think it woke me up a little bit, because I’d never had that [anal sex] done to me before. I remember moving around a lot. I was limp, and I was very floaty; I was in and out of a deep sleep.

“When I woke up, I was very relaxed—very stoned. The lights were on, and I was naked. He was shirtless at the end of the bed. And when I looked at him, he said, ‘You have really nice tits.’ … He was just folding clothes, walking around. He didn’t kiss me or anything.”

[source]
Nowhere does Prince say that she didn't consider it rape.

User avatar
Brian Peacock
Tipping cows since 1946
Posts: 37953
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
About me: Ablate me:
Location: Location: Location:
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Brian Peacock » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:15 pm

So, accordingly, we can move from withholding judgement to casting doubt now then?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.

.

"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."

Frank Zappa

"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 4:53 pm

L'Emmerdeur wrote:I don't know what article you read.
“I followed him, and we went into the bedroom, and it’s dark. I told him right away when he texted me that I was working tomorrow. So I was thinking maybe we would have a sort of intimate conversation somewhere else for five or 10 minutes. But he spun around quite quickly and said, ‘Kiss me.’ I did kiss him. And then he said, ‘Finish your drink’ and took the glass from me and put it on the table, and that’s really the last thing I remember.

“At some point, I was on the bed, face-forward, and he was behind me. I think it woke me up a little bit, because I’d never had that [anal sex] done to me before. I remember moving around a lot. I was limp, and I was very floaty; I was in and out of a deep sleep.

“When I woke up, I was very relaxed—very stoned. The lights were on, and I was naked. He was shirtless at the end of the bed. And when I looked at him, he said, ‘You have really nice tits.’ … He was just folding clothes, walking around. He didn’t kiss me or anything.”

[source]
Nowhere does Prince say that she didn't consider it rape.
She says in that article that she didn't think of it as rape. She's explaining why she did not go to the police. She said she blamed herself, didn't think of it as rape, and she liked him - she was interested in him, so she did not think about going to the police. Not sure how being anally raped would leave someone "interested in" and "liking" someone so that they would not report it to the police, but if one, at the time, didn't think of it as rape, then one would not report it. That much seems to make sense.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 5:00 pm

Brian Peacock wrote:So, accordingly, we can move from withholding judgement to casting doubt now then?
It's no different than reading anyone's account of any event. If a person alleges that he or she was assaulted, then the person says they were assaulted. If that's the only detail, one can't know what happened. The only way to evaluate an allegation is to be told the details. I was assaulted and here is how it happened.

If my friend comes to me and says some guy punched him in the pub 13 years ago, I'd say "wow, that's terrible." If he expects me to convict the guy, I'm going to need to see some evidence. I can't conclude the guy's guilty based on the fact that only a very few people falsely accuse others of punching them, and very few people lie about stuff like that.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:03 pm

Forty Two wrote:She says in that article that she didn't think of it as rape. She's explaining why she did not go to the police. She said she blamed herself, didn't think of it as rape, and she liked him - she was interested in him, so she did not think about going to the police. Not sure how being anally raped would leave someone "interested in" and "liking" someone so that they would not report it to the police, but if one, at the time, didn't think of it as rape, then one would not report it. That much seems to make sense.
Thanks--I was incorrect about how she says she thought about it at the time. If we're going to assume she's telling the truth about that, then we can also assume that her description of Blaine drugging her then having anal sex with her is also the truth.

User avatar
Forty Two
Posts: 14978
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Forty Two » Fri Oct 20, 2017 6:34 pm

I'm not assuming the truth of anything she's saying.

Her allegation is that he gave her an alcoholic drink. If we assume the truth of that and that she did not report it to the police at the time because she did not think it was rape, what are we to do with her allegation?

In her account, she had just gotten her drink when they went to the bedroom, and she finishes it quickly, and he then kisses her, and they fuck. By that description, that doesn't sound like Rohypnol, which takes about 20-30 minutes to start taking effect, and peaks in about 2 hours or so. And she'd like have no memory of being fucked.
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Oct 20, 2017 11:39 pm

Rohypnol is an intermediate-acting benzodiazepine with general properties similar to those of Valium (diazepam). It is used in the short-term treatment of insomnia, as a pre-medication in surgical procedures and for inducing anaesthesia.

Like other benzodiazepines (such as Valium, Librium and Xanax), Rohypnol's effects include sedation, muscle relaxation, reduction in anxiety, and prevention of convulsions. However, Rohypnol's sedative effects are approximately 7 to 10 times stronger than Valium. The effects of Rohypnol appear 15 to 20 minutes after administration and last approximately four to six hours. Some residual effects can be found 12 hours or more after administration.

...

Rohypnol causes partial amnesia; individuals are unable to remember certain events that they experience while under the influence of the drug. This effect is particularly dangerous when Rohypnol is used to aid in the commission of sexual assault; victims may not be able to clearly recall the assault, the assailant, or the events surrounding the assault. [source]

[My emphasis]
Again, if Prince was telling the truth she had only the one drink.

As for what is to be done, I think that's up the authorities. It seems she currently works at an art gallery--maybe you can think of a way that having this story come out is going to benefit her, but nothing comes to mind for me.

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Hermit » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:04 am

Forty Two wrote:...oppose baseless, stale rape allegations from 13+ years ago.
Oppose you may, of course, but do keep in mind that you are up against the various statutes of limitations. In your lovely country they vary, depending on state and nature of the crime committed, from five years to never. Also bear in mind that it is precisely the court of law to determine whether an allegation is baseless or not. It's not your call. Lastly, there is no law prohibiting Jane Doe from proclaiming to one and all "John Roe raped me 13 years ago." regardless of what, if any, evidence remains extant or ever existed in the first place. If John Roe takes exception to it he is free to take her to court over it.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

User avatar
Galaxian
Posts: 703
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:11 pm
About me: Too old & too far away from the Beloved...
Location: Koreye-koor
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Galaxian » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:23 am

Hermit wrote:
Forty Two wrote:...oppose baseless, stale rape allegations from 13+ years ago.
Oppose you may, of course, but do keep in mind that you are up against the various statutes of limitations. In your lovely country they vary, depending on state and nature of the crime committed, from five years to never. Also bear in mind that it is precisely the court of law to determine whether an allegation is baseless or not. It's not your call. Lastly, there is no law prohibiting Jane Doe from proclaiming to one and all "John Roe raped me 13 years ago." regardless of what, if any, evidence remains extant or ever existed in the first place. If John Roe takes exception to it he is free to take her to court over it.
Again, this is the distinction between the statute and the law as practiced.
A very late allegation of rape can theoretically be sued for. It's a civil case to prosecute for defamation, libel, or slander.
But, in practice, Blaine can't sue Prince for 2 reasons: a) She probably doesn't have enough money. b) He would be regarded as a bully trying to silence the wee female, who by convention can say whatever she likes, and thousands or millions of SJW will post on her behalf claiming 'freedom of speech'.

Mao Tse Tung said "Power comes out of the barrel of a gun". The Courts of Law are backed by the barrels of guns. They do what they want until they're forcefully stopped... then their successors do what they want until they're forcefully stopped, then their...... Courts are not fountains of Divine Justice. Recall that justice is spelt "Just Us". It, like 'democracy' is merely a fig leaf to obscure aristocratic oppression as it goes about looting & pillaging commoners, the beasts of burden, as it has always done.

Prince should have waited for 25 years to have a better chance of an outright win, but was probably impatient to get some loot. Notice that her original pleasurable experience has not stopped her making the ridiculous accusation.

Galaxian was given Rohypnol once. Never remembered a thing, so can't say if I was raped or not, and hence wouldn't care. Same with Prince. She would have had no recollection, so would not have been distressed, as evidence by taking 13 years to make up her mind.

So, are there ramifications to so many late fame/money seeking claimants? Indeed so:
a) More young men are hesitant to date women...It's too risky; Sexodus.
b) The rate of homosexuality, auto-sexuality & asexuality will climb, as it has been doing for some time.
c) There's a growing movement towards chaperoning women at all times...Good riddance emancipation.
d) There's already a backlash to enforce dress & behavior modesty.
e) Women will increasingly become 'sexless neutered objects', treated with disdain, disinterest, & cold indifference.

But all this is obvious, as is the final demise of humans in the next few years. So none of it matters... :coffee:
The true seeker looks for the truth wherever it may be and readily accepts it, without shame, without hope for reward and without fear of punishment._Sam Nejad
There's no Mercy. There's no Justice. There is only Natural Selection! _Galaxian
The more important a news item, the more likely that it's a hidden agenda disinformation_Galaxian
"This world of sheeple has no hope!" Thus just 13 years left before extinction by AI_ Galaxian

User avatar
Tyrannical
Posts: 6326
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:59 am
Contact:

Re: The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

Post by Tyrannical » Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:49 am

So, are there ramifications to so many late fame/money seeking claimants? Indeed so:
a) More young men are hesitant to date women...It's too risky; Sexodus.
b) The rate of homosexuality, auto-sexuality & asexuality will climb, as it has been doing for some time.
c) There's a growing movement towards chaperoning women at all times...Good riddance emancipation.
d) There's already a backlash to enforce dress & behavior modesty.
e) Women will increasingly become 'sexless neutered objects', treated with disdain, disinterest, & cold indifference.
But all this is obvious, as is the final demise of humans in the next few years. So none of it matters... :coffee:
Not..too.crazy...... It took under a hundred years of "women's equality" for birth levels to fall below replacement.
A rational skeptic should be able to discuss and debate anything, no matter how much they may personally disagree with that point of view. Discussing a subject is not agreeing with it, but understanding it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests