well-temperedforum.groupee.net    The Well-Tempered Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Off Key    No, no - maybe *this* was always the risk.
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
No, no - maybe *this* was always the risk.
 Login/Join
 
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of jon-nyc
posted
 
Posts: 30208 | Location: On the Hudson | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of jon-nyc
posted Hide Post
quote:
And would they even be considered evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accuser consented if they were presented to the police, lawyers and a jury?



Nice. Not only does the writer assume the burden of proof is on the accused but also that the standard is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.      Welcome to social ‘justice’, 2018 style.
 
Posts: 30208 | Location: On the Hudson | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
This whole area is fraught.

As always, this article makes some reasonable points (consent can be withdrawn at any time, so a video can't prove that consent wasn't withdrawn, unless you video the entire encounter, and maybe not even then).

And, as always, it ignores some things (while a video may not be definitive proof, it could be useful evidence ... although someone who is intent on lying would just say that they withdrew the consent afterwards).

And, as always, it creates straw men ... claiming that wanting a video is evidence that the requester thinks that "most reports of sexual assault are false". You don't need to think that it's MOST to want to be protected. Most houses don't burn down ... in fact, very few do ... but everyone wants fire insurance.

And then, the point you make about burden of proof and standard of guilt is outrageous.
 
Posts: 41799 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of jon-nyc
posted Hide Post
It's fascinating especially in light of the discussion on the other thread. Men and women are trying to solve two different problems.

The message of the piece is 'these don't work', but that's really not true. It depends on what problem you're trying to solve. (the problem of ensuring consent or the problem of preventing false accusations)

Of course this seems ridiculous but I can see how a celebrity would find it useful. They are under greater risk of false accusations, and probably only a celebrity could propose such a thing and not have the woman turn around and leave. Smiler
 
Posts: 30208 | Location: On the Hudson | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Has Achieved Nirvana
Picture of QuirtEvans
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:

The message of the piece is 'these don't work', but that's really not true. It depends on what problem you're trying to solve. (the problem of ensuring consent or the problem of preventing false accusations)



No, that's wrong. It doesn't depend on that. Whether you are trying to ensure consent, or whether you are trying to prevent false accusations, video consents may not work, because consent can be withdrawn, and a false accusation can be made that consent was withdrawn. So it doesn't solve either problem. It can help with either problem, but it can't solve either problem.

What a consent video does is sway public opinion. So, perhaps, most useful to celebrities in that regard.

The fascinating thing to me is that the the spokespeople for women's rights seem to feel the need to conflate a concern about false accusations with a belief that most, or many, accusations are false. As my fire insurance example demonstrates, the odds of something happening don't have to be particularly high for human beings to want to protect themselves from the risk.
 
Posts: 41799 | Registered: 20 April 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

    well-temperedforum.groupee.net    The Well-Tempered Forum  Hop To Forum Categories  Off Key    No, no - maybe *this* was always the risk.