Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

False Accusers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm just dying to know if all these people who believe this woman, who has very very inconsistent and scattered thoughts on the incident, which conflicts with other eyewitnesses that were there, also believed Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broaddrick.
    "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man." - Alex Vilenkin

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Feyaway View Post

      I don't think your understanding of psychology is really accurate. When you try to point to me as partly guilty me for not pressing charges after making a police report about an assault, that is going to make me a less comfortable ever coming to you about anything ever even if it happens right away. I would be more likely to go to the person who says better late than never thank you for speaking up now.
      first of all, itís both. I can still say bett late than never.

      Second, this is about long term culture. If you grew up under s culture that taught the moral virtue of immediately outing criminals and not turning the other way, then obviously you would be seen in a good light doing that and More likely to do it.




      And your response might make me also not want to come out right away to anyone because I see that you're going to try to find something wrong with it . You don't realize this but shaming and guilt are the opposite of conduciveness to vulnerability and trust. Your response makes you seem less trustworthy.
      where did I imply I was going to try to find something wrong with it?

      Your same excuses work for anyone on any crime.

      If i saw someone rob my home, but they escaped and the cops could not prosecute becasue itís only my word, I still have an obligation to warn the community about him.
      When men point to victims as guilty for coming out too late it only emboldens the actual perpetrators because they know people will still guilt the victims and try to find fault with them.
      no, becasue so many more women would actually come out early, becasue Thst virtue is taught, instead of everyone excusing silence.


      You can stick to your guns about how to approach a victim, but I know the psychology works a lot better when it is welcomed to voice and assault at any point with no pointing of guilt in the process.
      that might be true of those who do wait, but many more will not wait, if culture changes.


      If I voice an assault and no one points to guilting me for waiting, it will be all the more easy to speak up right away when it happens again because I will remember how welcomed and safe I felt.
      The problem is for most, itís so much easier just to let it slide. Itís a hassle reporting crime. If moral responsibility was emphasized. That mentality could be overcome.


      Good grief, we make people feel guilty for not voting, how much more so should we emphasize the moral emparative to out criminals for the sake of potential future victims?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Feyaway View Post

        Thank you for the sources.
        The first source that you quote seems to focus on early childhood. We are talking about late adolescence in the case of Kavanaugh, not that it would necessarily render the information irrelevant but I still think that is a notable difference. Additionally, when I brought up the topic of repression, I was not really meaning to discuss the idea of a memory that someone had never experienced ever remembering. Rather, when I speak of repression, I mean an avoidance of dealing with the memory and its significance in ones life. I have done this personally when I experienced grief. Rather than go through the grieving process, I avoided thinking about my loss. I think it is possible for women to go through the same process with an assault.


        It is also possible to not frame an assault as an assault immediately after it happens to protect your own mind and not see yourself as a victim. Later, upon reflecting on the details of the memory, it is possible to reassess the situation as an assault rather than deny what truly occurred.

        This is the type of repression I am discussing. I am not discussing the concept of an idea floating up into your mind out of nowhere that you have no recollection of ever remembering. I am more so talking about a memory resurfacing that you recall remembering but have avoided or minimized.
        Okay, I see, we're discussing two different things. That would more be memory avoidance/suppression than repressed memories. Repression is and has been a very specific thing, something which caused a whole lot of grief to innocent people back in the 80s during the Satanic Panic/Day Care Scare.
        A forum liberal
        "When you claimed black people were raped, wasn't that racist? I'd say so."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post
          first of all, itís both. I can still say bett late than never.

          Second, this is about long term culture. If you grew up under s culture that taught the moral virtue of immediately outing criminals and not turning the other way, then obviously you would be seen in a good light doing that and More likely to do it.


          where did I imply I was going to try to find something wrong with it?

          Your same excuses work for anyone on any crime.

          If i saw someone rob my home, but they escaped and the cops could not prosecute becasue itís only my word, I still have an obligation to warn the community about him.

          no, becasue so many more women would actually come out early, becasue Thst virtue is taught, instead of everyone excusing silence.



          that might be true of those who do wait, but many more will not wait, if culture changes.




          The problem is for most, itís so much easier just to let it slide. Itís a hassle reporting crime. If moral responsibility was emphasized. That mentality could be overcome.


          Good grief, we make people feel guilty for not voting, how much more so should we emphasize the moral emparative to out criminals for the sake of potential future victims?
          There are all sorts of ways to shape behavior and some of them work more effectively than others and some of them, while initially seeming logical, could prove more counterproductive.

          Example - If a student is acting out, and a teacher wants to stop that behavior, they might think that continually warning the child, telling them to stop, and disciplining them would help the situation and prevent the unwanted behavior. However, with further examination of what is going on emotionally with the student, we could see that giving further attention to the student is fueling his need for attention, thus reinforcing his bad behavior.

          Sometimes what seems logical on the surface actually isn't with further examination of psychological mechanisms.

          Your approach seems logical, but what you fail to realize is that is counterproductive because it doesn't take into account psychology nor the depth of emotion that is connected to sex assault that do not connect in your example of a robbery. Robbery does not have the same emotional impact of someone grabbing your genitals. We can't treat them the same.

          Furthermore..... Implying irresponsibility could act as a deterrent.

          Lets say you are my teacher and this occurs: I was hit in the head by another student at 9 am, but I didn't come to approach you to inform you because I was scared the student who hit me would see me tell on him and hurt me at lunch. (Last year I told teachers that someone had hit me and they didn't do anything about it so I know I run the risk that I could be vulnerable to more attack at lunch if you choose not to remove him from class, and I'm not sure you will). So I don't approach you until 3 to tell you because by then I know he has left on his school bus and I can tell you privately, when and where I am safe. Let's say your response was, "You should have come at 9, right away! It was your responsibility to do so and for all we know he has hit 10 other students since then." So in addition to being hit, I am also called irresponsible implicitly. (If you take into account that teachers did not protect me in the past, I would say my choice was not irresponsible and actually a rather smart move given the information I had at hand.)

          If the above situation occurs, I would be DETERRED from ever coming to you again. When another student starts to gossip about me, I will not tell you because I will remember the negative emotional impact of you calling me irresponsible.

          However, if I had a teacher who right away thanked me for coming forward, even if at the end of the day, and said, "If you tell me right away, I'll make sure he is removed right away" I would continue to go to that teacher. But if the teacher said, "It wasn't responsible of you.. It was your duty to tell right away... he may have hit others since then.." that teacher is using weaker and ineffective strategies that will only undermine an environment where openness takes place.


          "Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
          -Yoda

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Feyaway View Post

            There are all sorts of ways to shape behavior and some of them work more effectively than others and some of them, while initially seeming logical, could prove more counterproductive.

            Example - If a student is acting out, and a teacher wants to stop that behavior, they might think that continually warning the child, telling them to stop, and disciplining them would help the situation and prevent the unwanted behavior. However, with further examination of what is going on emotionally with the student, we could see that giving further attention to the student is fueling his need for attention, thus reinforcing his bad behavior.

            Sometimes what seems logical on the surface actually isn't with further examination of psychological mechanisms.

            Your approach seems logical, but what you fail to realize is that is counterproductive because it doesn't take into account psychology nor the depth of emotion that is connected to sex assault that do not connect in your example of a robbery. Robbery does not have the same emotional impact of someone grabbing your genitals. We can't treat them the same.

            Furthermore..... Implying irresponsibility could act as a deterrent.

            Lets say you are my teacher and this occurs: I was hit in the head by another student at 9 am, but I didn't come to approach you to inform you because I was scared the student who hit me would see me tell on him and hurt me at lunch. (Last year I told teachers that someone had hit me and they didn't do anything about it so I know I run the risk that I could be vulnerable to more attack at lunch if you choose not to remove him from class, and I'm not sure you will). So I don't approach you until 3 to tell you because by then I know he has left on his school bus and I can tell you privately, when and where I am safe. Let's say your response was, "You should have come at 9, right away! It was your responsibility to do so and for all we know he has hit 10 other students since then." So in addition to being hit, I am also called irresponsible implicitly. (If you take into account that teachers did not protect me in the past, I would say my choice was not irresponsible and actually a rather smart move given the information I had at hand.)

            If the above situation occurs, I would be DETERRED from ever coming to you again. When another student starts to gossip about me, I will not tell you because I will remember the negative emotional impact of you calling me irresponsible.

            However, if I had a teacher who right away thanked me for coming forward, even if at the end of the day, and said, "If you tell me right away, I'll make sure he is removed right away" I would continue to go to that teacher. But if the teacher said, "It wasn't responsible of you.. It was your duty to tell right away... he may have hit others since then.." that teacher is using weaker and ineffective strategies that will only undermine an environment where openness takes place.

            I donít think you got my point.

            I was not suggesting we brow brow beat a sexual abuse victim when they come forward late, or even that we criticize at all. The priority at that point is to support them and Seek justice for the much greater issue st hand.

            I am saying in general as a soxiety we should be emphasizing the moral nature of our personal responsibility seeking to bring criminals tomnustice for the sake of others. That this is the right thing to do. I think the difference between us is Thst you might not believe Thst. I believe it, therefore I believe it should be talked about and society should encourage it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post

              I don’t think you got my point.

              I was not suggesting we brow brow beat a sexual abuse victim when they come forward late, or even that we criticize at all. The priority at that point is to support them and Seek justice for the much greater issue st hand.

              I am saying in general as a soxiety we should be emphasizing the moral nature of our personal responsibility seeking to bring criminals tomnustice for the sake of others. That this is the right thing to do. I think the difference between us is Thst you might not believe Thst. I believe it, therefore I believe it should be talked about and society should encourage it.
              Well, when I shared that someone assaulted me in a stairwell while walking on my way to a computer lab in college, you made sure to tell me it was wrong of me to report it to the police but not press charges. I still to this day believe I did the right thing. I did tell the cops the moment after it occurred and then after telling the cops I asked myself, "What actions are my best chance at health and surviving in life?" And I took those actions.

              Let me ask you a question. How obligated are you to put yourself in harms way for others? If you spotted a criminal in a 7-11 with guns pointed at everyone, are obligated to go in? Are you obligated to increase harm against yourself to prevent others from harming others?

              Perhaps you believe you are morally obligated to go in there to prevent damage to others. I don't believe you are. I don't believe you must sacrifice your well-being to prevent harm to others. I believe it is acceptable for you to take a course of actions that helps you survive and live, should that be your desire.

              For example, you could call the police and put the onus on them. That is what I would do. But I would not likely face the attacker and I would not feel shame in not doing so.

              The man who assaulted me was mentally deranged and I'm half his size. The safest course of actions for me, as I saw it, was to inform the police about it (which I did RIGHT AWAY) but not have anymore interactions with him or bring attention to myself given that I was forced to live in the same strip of buildings with him all semester. He had access to my room because my roommate would leave the door open and he could walk right in if he felt like it. I could not force my roommate to lock the door at all times. I do not have those powers over others.

              If I lived in a private place where he couldn't reach me, say in another zipcode from him and in a place where I had control over doors being locked, I would have felt more comfortable pressing charges and seeing him in court. But because we were neighbors and he had complete access to me, I didn't feel that risking my well-being was worth it. I still don't, actually. I told the police. I was not silent. I told others. I was not silent. I did what I needed to do to survive.

              You could say, "Well... you should have increased your chances of harm against yourself by the deranged guy for the good of others"... sorry, you and I will have a philosophical disagreement. I told the cops. I spoke up. And then I did what I could to live. I don't regret my choices given the details of my situation and the time in which occurred.


              "Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
              -Yoda

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Feyaway View Post

                Well, when I shared that someone assaulted me in a stairwell while walking on my way to a computer lab in college, you made sure to tell me it was wrong of me to report it to the police but not press charges. I still to this day believe I did the right thing. I did tell the cops the moment after it occurred and then after telling the cops I asked myself, "What actions are my best chance at health and surviving in life?" And I took those actions.

                Let me ask you a question. How obligated are you to put yourself in harms way for others? If you spotted a criminal in a 7-11 with guns pointed at everyone, are obligated to go in? Are you obligated to increase harm against yourself to prevent others from harming others?

                Perhaps you believe you are morally obligated to go in there to prevent damage to others. I don't believe you are. I don't believe you must sacrifice your well-being to prevent harm to others. I believe it is acceptable for you to take a course of actions that helps you survive and live, should that be your desire.

                For example, you could call the police and put the onus on them. That is what I would do. But I would not likely face the attacker and I would not feel shame in not doing so.

                The man who assaulted me was mentally deranged and I'm half his size. The safest course of actions for me, as I saw it, was to inform the police about it (which I did RIGHT AWAY) but not have anymore interactions with him or bring attention to myself given that I was forced to live in the same strip of buildings with him all semester. He had access to my room because my roommate would leave the door open and he could walk right in if he felt like it. I could not force my roommate to lock the door at all times. I do not have those powers over others.

                If I lived in a private place where he couldn't reach me, say in another zipcode from him and in a place where I had control over doors being locked, I would have felt more comfortable pressing charges and seeing him in court. But because we were neighbors and he had complete access to me, I didn't feel that risking my well-being was worth it. I still don't, actually. I told the police. I was not silent. I told others. I was not silent. I did what I needed to do to survive.

                You could say, "Well... you should have increased your chances of harm against yourself by the deranged guy for the good of others"... sorry, you and I will have a philosophical disagreement. I told the cops. I spoke up. And then I did what I could to live. I don't regret my choices given the details of my situation and the time in which occurred.

                I said at the beginning “in general” and certainly would allow for cases where there is a reasonable threat of danger in coming forward.
                There are very view absolutes in the world.

                Neither of us is claiming ing we should never put ourselves in harms way, I hope. We just seem to disagree on what a reasonable level of risk is.

                take this kavanauh accuser. There is no reasonable expectation of danger from reporting him at the time. Yet there is always a risk, however so slight in doing literally anything.

                A little baby falls in a kiddie pool, you might slip and bump your head, get knocked out and drown by attempting to reaching over to save the baby. But it’s a lame excuse not to do your moral duty. We agree I assume. I take thst principal further than you do it seems.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Maxmus View Post
                  Should false accusers of rape or sexual assault, if such can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, be punished by codified law? Should false accusers of sexual harassment, if proven within the limited HR system that now exists to render judgments on the accused, be penalized if such is proven to be the case? Is so, why? If not, why not?
                  How would the answers here change if the OP was changed to focus on the religious sphere? The Me Too movement as rocked the religious world. Do the answers provided here so far also apply to the Catholic Church, the Protestant churches?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Maxmus View Post
                    Should false accusers of rape or sexual assault, if such can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, be punished by codified law? Should false accusers of sexual harassment, if proven within the limited HR system that now exists to render judgments on the accused, be penalized if such is proven to be the case? Is so, why? If not, why not?
                    Personally, I think false accusers should be handed over to the people whose lives they destroyed. There should be a little bit more than just a victim impact statement.
                    "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." - Thomas Paine - THE AGE OF REASON

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post

                      I said at the beginning “in general” and certainly would allow for cases where there is a reasonable threat of danger in coming forward.
                      There are very view absolutes in the world.

                      Neither of us is claiming ing we should never put ourselves in harms way, I hope. We just seem to disagree on what a reasonable level of risk is.

                      take this kavanauh accuser. There is no reasonable expectation of danger from reporting him at the time. Yet there is always a risk, however so slight in doing literally anything.

                      A little baby falls in a kiddie pool, you might slip and bump your head, get knocked out and drown by attempting to reaching over to save the baby. But it’s a lame excuse not to do your moral duty. We agree I assume. I take thst principal further than you do it seems.
                      Your baby in pool analogy is not very similar. A baby is helpless... not an adult. There is no wrongdoer. The chance of slipping is remote. But sure when the chance of harm to self is remote to none it makes sense to help prevent harm to others.

                      The fact you think that there could be no danger in reporting this guy in the 80s(?) When sex assault was not taken seriously and less than a decade after a judge blamed a 15 year old victim in her rape for having a lacy bra..... This was a time when victims watched their attackers walk Scott free and in my observations watched them return to attack. I saw this in 1993.

                      My moral duty to help prevent harm to others is always balanced with keeping myself alive. I don't have to walk into a bank robbery. I don't have to walk into a burning building to get a baby that isn't mine but I can call 911 to report that I heard a baby in there.
                      Last edited by Feyaway; 09-24-18, 09:27 AM.
                      "Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
                      -Yoda

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post

                        I said at the beginning “in general” and certainly would allow for cases where there is a reasonable threat of danger in coming forward.
                        There are very view absolutes in the world.

                        Neither of us is claiming ing we should never put ourselves in harms way, I hope. We just seem to disagree on what a reasonable level of risk is.

                        take this kavanauh accuser. There is no reasonable expectation of danger from reporting him at the time. Yet there is always a risk, however so slight in doing literally anything.

                        A little baby falls in a kiddie pool, you might slip and bump your head, get knocked out and drown by attempting to reaching over to save the baby. But it’s a lame excuse not to do your moral duty. We agree I assume. I take thst principal further than you do it seems.
                        According to accuser and illustrated accounts in the School yearbooks, Her and their drinking parties were a noted popularity. She admitted she did parties she didn't want her parents to know about.

                        Worried about parents, not Kavenaugh.

                        There is a lot of trouble for her regarding her drinking at age 15.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Feyaway View Post

                          Your baby in pool analogy is not very similar. A baby is helpless... not an adult. There is no wrongdoer. The chance of slipping is remote..
                          And 5enchance of someone coming after you for reporting them is very remote as well.

                          We see see that in movie and tv, so the threat might seem plausible, but it rarely happens. In a few cases of a crazy perp, I might understand more concern. Most perps know they will be a prime suspect if they go after an accuser, and the accuser will be on alert. They know better.


                          The level of risk is incredibly low in general. In cases of spouse or boyfriend abusing, sure the odds are much higher, but in those cases you are still a fool for not either leaving or going to authorities, any choice you make has risks in those cases.

                          in the kanaaugh case she had no reasonable expectation of fear. She was worried more about her parents than kavanaugh. Thst is immoral selfishness. We all do it, but itís not something we should proud of or excuse. We should encourage the opposite.
                          Last edited by Simpletruther; 09-24-18, 10:16 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simpletruther View Post

                            And 5enchance of someone coming after you for reporting them is very remote as well.

                            We see see that in movie and tv, so the threat might seem plausible, but it rarely happens. In a few cases of a crazy perp, I might understand more concern. Most perps know they will be a prime suspect if they go after an accuser, and the accuser will be on alert. They know better.


                            The level of risk is incredibly low in general. In cases of spouse or boyfriend abusing, sure the odds are much higher, but in those cases you are still a fool for not either leaving or going to authorities, any choice you make has risks in those cases.

                            in the kanaaugh case she had no reasonable expectation of fear. She was worried more about her parents than kavanaugh. Thst is immoral selfishness. We all do it, but it’s not something we should proud of or excuse. We should encourage the opposite.
                            How could you know what she was and wasn't afraid of when you are not her?

                            See, here you go again calling victims immoral and selfish. Again, creating an environment that deters people from coming forward.

                            You can encourage people to come forward by not attributing negative character traits to the people who did no wrong to others. In that era women weren't suffiently protected after making accusations. She had every right to wait until she felt safe to do it, given the culture.
                            "Fear is the path to the dark side: fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
                            -Yoda

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Feyaway View Post

                              How could you know what she was and wasn't afraid of when you are not her?

                              See, here you go again calling victims immoral and selfish. Again, creating an environment that deters people from coming forward.
                              She might have been afraid, but it was an irrational fear, based upon tiny odds of danger. And he is a low risk perp. Could have have been a serial killer, sure. Just like you could slip and break your neck saving a baby in a pool. But again, itís a poor excuse.




                              You can encourage people to come forward by not attributing negative character traits to the people who did no wrong to others.
                              but she did do wrong. She didnít fulfill a basic moral duty to out an agreesor.

                              and in her case, it was incredibly likely that he was just drunk,and not a consistent threat. I think you know this. Thatís is what the odds tell us about prep school boys who are drunk. Itís one in a million thst would do anything if someone accused them later. They know better. They know how it would look.






                              In that era women weren't suffiently protected after making accusations. She had every right to wait until she felt safe to do it, given the culture.
                              Well we disagree. Doing the right thing takes a tiny bit of risk sometimes.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Nouveau View Post

                                According to accuser and illustrated accounts in the School yearbooks, Her and their drinking parties were a noted popularity. She admitted she did parties she didn't want her parents to know about.

                                Worried about parents, not Kavenaugh.

                                There is a lot of trouble for her regarding her drinking at age 15.
                                There is also a lot of trouble in her being a Democrat political activist, along with all the other women who are now so publicly cheering her on....and giving herself a complete pass on the circumstances you've described there.

                                Fact: teenaged boys not only DO make sexual advances upon girls, but it's normal.....what is NOT normal is for underaged girls to be routinely engaged in rowdy drinking parties while their parents knowingly send them to schools known for such things.

                                Or at least it didn't used to be. When I see the behavior of the kidlets on "spring break", etc., I must confess times have changed. But it takes two to tango, and what I'm seeing the girls doing in those circumstances only makes me wonder why we aren't seeing massive reporting of "sexual molestation" by the boys whom they are clearly trying to impress with their "flirtations."

                                What was Ms. Ford doing in the hours leading up to this incident she so vaguely recalls, that has supposedly ruined her life? Oh...she can't remember. How convenient.
                                "For the eyes of the LORD move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His...." 2 Chronicles 16:9 NASB

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X