Harvey Weinstein fighting back

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



cdtm
He's looking at forty years in prison, so no surprise there.

What is surprising, is you don't hear much about resisting the allegations. I know defamation lawsuits are borderline impossible if you're a public figure, but it just seems like any time you're accused now, you're done. Virtually no resistance, no pushback, proof not required.

These are, in theory, very powerful people getting steamrolled by the #metoo" movement. Seeing them all go down with a whimper is just.. odd. In a society where lawyers sue and countersue for a dirty look, it just doesn't make sense.

Surtur
I read an article the other day about him resisting the allegations. He was using emails some woman had sent to him at a time after whatever she claims he did to her had occurred.

Surtur
Boom.

"Miss you": Accuser thanked Harvey Weinstein after alleged rape, lawyers say

cdtm
Yep. thumb up



And I guess I should have known:


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/metoo-has-led-to-an-asphyxiating-vortex-of-litigation







It's not that the accused aren't fighting back. No one is simply reporting on it.

Not in the states, anyways. The news in this country is completely, 100% unreliable for keeping people informed..

Surtur
And I have to ask: why is this woman telling a rapist she misses him?

The problem here is people will come in and trot out the cliche "well you see rape victims can act wacky cuz of the trauma" and then...what the hell do you even say to that? It doesn't magically negate the "I miss you" thing. It doesn't mean that in this specific case what we are seeing is a rape victim dealing with trauma in a strange way.

cdtm
Originally posted by Surtur
And I have to ask: why is this woman telling a rapist she misses him?

The problem here is people will come in and trot out the cliche "well you see rape victims can act wacky cuz of the trauma" and then...what the hell do you even say to that? It doesn't magically negate the "I miss you" thing. It doesn't mean that in this specific case what we are seeing is a rape victim dealing with trauma in a strange way.

No, it doesn't.

I don't doubt for a second that Harvey Weinstein is a pervert and womanizer. I'm not certain he's a rapist, though I wouldn't be surprised.

But this is also the shady world of entertainment, media, lawsuits, and more money then god, so we'll never really know what's "really" going on. Maybe Bob really did set his brother up over a falling out, like Harvey suspects.

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
No, it doesn't.

I don't doubt for a second that Harvey Weinstein is a pervert and womanizer. I'm not certain he's a rapist, though I wouldn't be surprised.

But this is also the shady world of entertainment, media, lawsuits, and more money then god, so we'll never really know what's "really" going on. Maybe Bob really did set his brother up over a falling out, like Harvey suspects.

Yep, I honestly do not find it hard to believe most of these women willingly banged him in order to further their careers.

And the excuse is some of them didn't speak out cuz they didn't wanna harm their own careers. Surely there is another career they could have gone into that wouldn't involve enabling a racist, but probably not one that would make them rich.

And then you have these actresses who, long ago, might have lacked the power to call out Harvey without it harming their career. But some of these women are household names. Could have gone public once their career reached a certain point. And people like Ashley Judd don't seem to have been big in acting for years, so what the hell were they waiting on? I can't recall the last good performance she gave or the last big film she was in.

StiltmanFTW
Originally posted by Surtur
Yep, I honestly do not find it hard to believe most of these women willingly banged him in order to further their careers.

Takes no Sherlock to figure that out.

And he was one of the great many producers taking advantage of his position, I bet.

MythLord
There's enough proof to condemn Weinstein. His resistance has been reported, it's just been overwhelmed by just how much there's proof against him and too many people are coming forwards.
Some of them could be absolute cvnts who wanna take advantage of the situation and get money, but it's the assumption that every woman is doing it that helps up to 97% of rape cases having the rapist go free.

It's OK to demand evidence, but when evidence, as well as an overwhelming quantity of women, come forwards and complain, people are still pushing against it for the sake of "they want attention" or "its fake" or "they're gold-digging whores".

ArtificialGlory
Originally posted by cdtm
Yep. thumb up



And I guess I should have known:


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/03/metoo-has-led-to-an-asphyxiating-vortex-of-litigation







It's not that the accused aren't fighting back. No one is simply reporting on it.

Not in the states, anyways. The news in this country is completely, 100% unreliable for keeping people informed..
What a clusterf**k.

cdtm
Originally posted by MythLord
There's enough proof to condemn Weinstein. His resistance has been reported, it's just been overwhelmed by just how much there's proof against him and too many people are coming forwards.
Some of them could be absolute cvnts who wanna take advantage of the situation and get money, but it's the assumption that every woman is doing it that helps up to 97% of rape cases having the rapist go free.

It's OK to demand evidence, but when evidence, as well as an overwhelming quantity of women, come forwards and complain, people are still pushing against it for the sake of "they want attention" or "its fake" or "they're gold-digging whores".

I agree with what your saying in principle, but you also have to remember lawyers usually go to them, and "easy money" schemes are COMMON.

I could point to half a dozen people school days alone who lied like drunken sailors after a car accident, or a minor injury turned payouts for life. And that's for penny anty payouts to the tune of a few thousand in two years, at most.

The kind of lawsuits we're talking about here are worth MILLIONS. If not hundreds of millions.

That's a very strong incentive to turn sleeping to the top into sexual assault.

StiltmanFTW
Originally posted by cdtm
He's looking at forty years in prison

Whoa, what?

Link?

MythLord
Originally posted by cdtm
I agree with what your saying in principle, but you also have to remember lawyers usually go to them, and "easy money" schemes are COMMON.

I could point to half a dozen people school days alone who lied like drunken sailors after a car accident, or a minor injury turned payouts for life. And that's for penny anty payouts to the tune of a few thousand in two years, at most.

The kind of lawsuits we're talking about here are worth MILLIONS. If not hundreds of millions.

That's a very strong incentive to turn sleeping to the top into sexual assault.
Which is all well and good, but no reason to dismiss the allegations of a large number of women. Even if at least one of them was actually assaulted, Harvey deserves jail. And the rest of the harpies who lied deserve the same, if they lied. But I doubt most of them did.

cdtm
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Whoa, what?

Link?

https://deadline.com/2018/07/harvey-weinstein-new-criminal-charges-third-victim-new-york-sexual-assault-1202420457/

First heard it over the local lefty news. They're not fooling around, and probably want to make an example of him.

If Bob started this domino effect as "a takedown", he's brother of the year for helping his brother rot in prison for life. Bet he thought he'd get a slap on the wrist, because he's Harvey Weinstein. Guess again, Bob! (And anyone want to bet Bob has a closet full of skeletons that probably makes his brothers look like the Narnia gateway?)

One Big Mob
Originally posted by MythLord
There's enough proof to condemn Weinstein. His resistance has been reported, it's just been overwhelmed by just how much there's proof against him and too many people are coming forwards.
Some of them could be absolute cvnts who wanna take advantage of the situation and get money, but it's the assumption that every woman is doing it that helps up to 97% of rape cases having the rapist go free.

It's OK to demand evidence, but when evidence, as well as an overwhelming quantity of women, come forwards and complain, people are still pushing against it for the sake of "they want attention" or "its fake" or "they're gold-digging whores". Is it not possible that he simply slept with a lot of woman and jumping on the "rape" train is a lot easier than saying "We willingly had sex with him for fame"?

I have no doubts he was being a massive creep and made them feel uncomfortable during. But the guy was getting pussy slung at him like Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Do we really think he needed to repeatedly rape the same women who would go and visit him and then magically get bigger roles?

It seems a lot of women had buyers remorse and seen how easy it was to spin it to rape instead of consent. Look at the guy, no one would be proud to get porked by that hog. Obviously a lot of girls wouldn't be happy about his cock dangling around both sets of lips.

Seems suspect to me anyway. "Teehee what am I doing in your house? I thought we were going to be going over lines for my movie that you as a PRODUCER would know?"

Plus I don't think Harvey has denied anything but the rape charges. It kind of fits.

But you never know what truly happened. He does look like rapist I guess. Gets mad because someone dared to reject him and went to penis punishment land out of anger. I could see it.

Flyattractor
I think we should play it safe and imprison every Celebrity and Hollywood Movie Executive just to be on the safe side.

janus77
If ugly men can't get pussy through accomplishment, civilisation will collapse. Mark my words!

Flyattractor
Originally posted by janus77
If ugly men can't get pussy through accomplishment, civilisation will collapse. Mark my words!

Well that explains the take of certain KMC Posters and the Prostitution Thread....

janus77
Originally posted by Flyattractor
Well that explains the take of certain KMC Posters and the Prostitution Thread....
I'm all for prostitution. It relaxes the ugly men and gives ease to the loose but nice looking women.

I mean, if a woman is considering prostitution as a means of making money, then she clearly doesn't see sex as something reserved for a monogamous relationship.

Why not let her relax the frustrated and inept men who require a warm hole?

Flyattractor
How many poor prostitutes have been crushed to death or gone insane because of this I wonder?

janus77
Originally posted by Flyattractor
How many poor prostitutes have been crushed to death or gone insane because of this I wonder?

Harvey's a big man, but not _that_ big ... confused

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
There's enough proof to condemn Weinstein. His resistance has been reported, it's just been overwhelmed by just how much there's proof against him and too many people are coming forwards.
Some of them could be absolute cvnts who wanna take advantage of the situation and get money, but it's the assumption that every woman is doing it that helps up to 97% of rape cases having the rapist go free.

It's OK to demand evidence, but when evidence, as well as an overwhelming quantity of women, come forwards and complain, people are still pushing against it for the sake of "they want attention" or "its fake" or "they're gold-digging whores".

The only concrete evidence I've seen is him admitting to a woman(who he didn't know was recording) that he had essentially groped her. Which is way way different from rape. I think he also admitted to asking people to watch him shower and stuff like that.

Flyattractor
Originally posted by janus77
Harvey's a big man, but not _that_ big ... confused

See the "Insane" part.

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
Which is all well and good, but no reason to dismiss the allegations of a large number of women. Even if at least one of them was actually assaulted, Harvey deserves jail. And the rest of the harpies who lied deserve the same, if they lied. But I doubt most of them did.

Let me ask you this: let us say you were on the jury for this. Would you truly be comfortable sending this man to prison for the rest of his life if the only evidence of rape was the number of accusers?

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by Surtur
Let me ask you this: let us say you were on the jury for this. Would you truly be comfortable sending this man to prison for the rest of his life if the only evidence of rape was the number of accusers?

Zero evidence from 100 accusers is still zero evidence.

NemeBro
Originally posted by Surtur
I think he also admitted to asking people to watch him shower lol, what a weirdo.

SquallX

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
Let me ask you this: let us say you were on the jury for this. Would you truly be comfortable sending this man to prison for the rest of his life if the only evidence of rape was the number of accusers?
If a boatload of people are accusing someone of being a rapist and an assaulter, then chances are they aren't all just doing it for the money. So yes, I would be comfortable sending him away.

Coming to his house repeatedly doesn't neccessarily mean they wanted to. Harvey was very much their boss, and someone who could end their careers at the time if so he wished. He could've, and likely did, manipulate/blackmail them into that situation.

Beniboybling

Surtur

Surtur

Beniboybling

Surtur
Basically I'd want more evidence than accusations. So him hiring ex spies in order to try to intimidate these women would indeed be more evidence than mere accusations.

Without any other evidence a jury will have to decide if his actions with hiring people to intimidate victims is enough to believe the claims are true.

MythLord
I have to ask: Would y'all consider being blackmailed into sex the same as rape? I mean, you technically "consented" but only because there was no other choice and you were backed into a corner.

Robtard

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
The Surtur's of the world really need to make up their minds, at first he was a "Leftist rapist!, now they're defending him. Weird.

Trying to decide what level he ranks at on the scale of sexual harassment and assault is not defending him. This is what I mean when I say it's hilarious you ever mention having intellectually honest conversations.

Nobody has said this man is a good man. Personal opinions of him are one thing, this is about the law and what kind of evidence would be needed to put him away for life.

Beniboybling
Asking for clarity on the extent of Weinstein's actions and demanding sufficient evidence for a life sentence is not defending Harvey.

Casting doubt on the testimonies of the victims with flimsy attacks on their credibility is. thumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Asking for clarity on the extent of Weinstein's actions and demanding sufficient evidence for a life sentence is not defending Harvey.

Casting doubt on the testimonies of the victims with flimsy attacks on their credibility is. thumb up

Bingo

Surtur
I personally don't know how credible they are one way or the other. That has nothing to do with Harvey and everything to do with this seedy business they all existed in.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but given that apparently a lot in Hollywood looked the other way when it came to Harvey for a long time...it's hard to trust anything anymore.

If you need to twist it into a defense of Harvey because you have no better argument, so be it thumb up

Robtard
Originally posted by MythLord
I have to ask: Would y'all consider being blackmailed into sex the same as rape? I mean, you technically "consented" but only because there was no other choice and you were backed into a corner.

Being coerced into sex is tantamount to rape.

eg If someone has embarrassing info on you and use that to get you to spread buttcheeks when you normally wouldn't have done so for them, that's the same as rape

Surtur
I honestly don't know how I'd see the blackmail issue. Is there any cases in the past that dealt with such an issue?

What about a guy who keeps bugging his gf and she says no and he keeps bugging her until she gives in? She was, in a way, coerced.

cdtm
Originally posted by Robtard
Being coerced into sex is tantamount to rape.

eg If someone has embarrassing info on you and use that to get you to spread buttcheeks when you normally wouldn't have done so for them, that's the same as rape

That's right.

The real muddy waters are things like "sex for..." trades. If Weinstein "helped" women he slept with, is it rape?

The other elephant in the room is, if a woman does it to a man, does anyone even care, or have sympathy?

Beniboybling
Originally posted by Surtur
I personally don't know how credible they are one way or the other. That has nothing to do with Harvey and everything to do with this seedy business they all existed in.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but given that apparently a lot in Hollywood looked the other way when it came to Harvey for a long time...it's hard to trust anything anymore.

If you need to twist it into a defense of Harvey because you have no better argument, so be it thumb up Multiple people looked the other way in regards to Harvey victimising women, therefore the women Harvey victimised cannot be trusted.

As always your logic is impeccable. No need for me to twist anything when you so frequently knock yourself out. sad

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
I honestly don't know how I'd see the blackmail issue. Is there any cases in the past that dealt with such an issue?

What about a guy who keeps bugging his gf and she says no and he keeps bugging her until she gives in? She was, in a way, coerced.

Really? You're torn on whether blackmailing someone into sex should be a crime? Do I understand you here correctly?

Not sure "bugging someone" falls under coercing someone, as coercion means using force and/or threats.

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
What about a guy who keeps bugging his gf and she says no and he keeps bugging her until she gives in? She was, in a way, coerced.
Well, that's not really coercing, just being annoying. It's more like a child asking for a toy over and over until it gets it rather than getting being threatened by a jerk-off who wants to be jerked off.

Surtur
Originally posted by Robtard
Really? You're torn on whether blackmailing someone into sex should be a crime? Do I understand you here correctly?

Not sure "bugging someone" falls under coercing someone, as coercion means using force and/or threats.

Lol nope you don't understand me correctly. Blackmail is a crime. I'm just not sure if I see it as exactly tantamount to rape.

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
Well, that's not really coercing, just being annoying. It's more like a child asking for a toy over and over until it gets it rather than getting being threatened by a jerk-off who wants to be jerked off.

I don't see how someone who doesn't wanna have sex and only does so in order to stop being bugged for it is not being coerced into sex.

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
I don't see how someone who doesn't wanna have sex and only does so in order to stop being bugged for it is not being coerced into sex.
Like I said, there's a core difference. In one instance, you're in a consenting relationship with an annoying partner, but the partner is just being a nuisance, not threatening and blackmailing you. It's akin to a kid begging for a toy.
Now, if the boyfriend went from just saying "Hey have sex with me" over and over to telling her if she doesn't agree to have sex with him he'll get her fired from her job, ruin her career and also post her nudes on the internet: that'd be coercion.

It's a simple concept and a big difference in effect and scale.

But let's look at it another way: if I begged you for a loan constantly and you just got annoyed and gave me money, did I rob you?

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
Like I said, there's a core difference. In one instance, you're in a consenting relationship with an annoying partner, but the partner is just being a nuisance, not threatening and blackmailing you. It's akin to a kid begging for a toy.
Now, if the boyfriend went from just saying "Hey have sex with me" over and over to telling her if she doesn't agree to have sex with him he'll get her fired from her job, ruin her career and also post her nudes on the internet: that'd be coercion.

It's a simple concept and a big difference in effect and scale.

But let's look at it another way: if I begged you for a loan constantly and you just got annoyed and gave me money, did I rob you?

IMO constant nagging at someone until they give in could be seen as a form of arm twisting. The implication being "if you want this nagging to stop, have sex with me".

You keep talking about a child and a toy. The child doesn't really know better. It's the same reason you'd view a little kid running up and grabbing your gf's butt as different than a grown man doing it.

As for the loan, like I said...I feel if you constantly just begged me(and you were a friend) and tried to guilt me, not robbery, but I don't think you could argue I actually wanted to give this person the loan.

MythLord
Right, but it's not the same to arm-twist someone by being annoying and to force them via blackmail, threat or assault.

There's a noticeable disparity in scale here, which is what I think makes the big difference.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol nope you don't understand me correctly. Blackmail is a crime. I'm just not sure if I see it as exactly tantamount to rape.

Seems I did, actually.

If said blackmail is used to force someone into sex, how is that not tantamount to rape? You realize one crime does not necessarily negate another, yeah. There can be multiple offenses. Do better for yourself.

Flyattractor
I am loving how the same people that Declared Bill Cosby Guilty of His Alleged Sex Crimes are now Defending Weinsitein on his charges.

Oh Leftist Hypocrisy....and apparently i would say racism, but well ...WEINSTEIN

MythLord
The people who are defending Weinstein are right-wing, you doorknob.

The lefty's are the ones condemning him. They also condemn Cosby.

darthgoober
Actually extorting/blackmailing someone with the threat of taking a negative action against the person if they don't give it up is rape. However, demanding sex as a quid pro quo for your own support/help isn't(or at least, it shouldn't be considered such). Seems pretty simple to me.

Robtard
Exactly, using blackmail to get someone to perform sex is in line with rape, as you're forcing them into sex with threats . Saying "if you suck me off, I'll get you a part in a film" isn't rape as the person isn't being forced, that is still sexual harassment though.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
Exactly, using blackmail to get someone to perform sex is in line with rape, as you're forcing them into sex with threats . Saying "if you suck me off, I'll get you a part in a film" isn't rape as the person isn't being forced, that is still sexual harassment though.
I honestly wouldn't even consider it sexual harassment. Don't get me wrong because I'm not arguing that it doesn't constitute sexual harassment under our current laws, I'm just saying that I think those laws are stupid and need to be changed. You can offer to help someone in exchange for them cleaning your house, teaching you kid to dance, or walking your dog without it being considered any kind of harassment whatsoever so WTF.

Think about it like this, a young woman approaches someone and says "Can you do me a favor and please *insert favor*" and it's not harassment even though she approached a stranger out of nowhere asking for special treatment. But if the guys says "Why yes I can but only if you give me head" then HE'S guilty of sexual harassment. I don't understand how we're still so sexual repressed as a society that sex is the one favor you're not allowed to ask for. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

Robtard
Originally posted by darthgoober
I honestly wouldn't even consider it sexual harassment. Don't get me wrong because I'm not arguing that it doesn't constitute sexual harassment under our current laws, I'm just saying that I think those laws are stupid and need to be changed. You can offer to help someone in exchange for them cleaning your house, teaching you kid to dance, or walking your dog without it being considered any kind of harassment whatsoever so WTF.

Think about it like this, a young woman approaches someone and says "Can you do me a favor and please *insert favor*" and it's not harassment even though she approached a stranger out of nowhere asking for special treatment. But if the guys says "Why yes I can but only if you give me head" then HE'S guilty of sexual harassment. I don't understand how we're still so sexual repressed as a society that sex is the one favor you're not allowed to ask for. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.

If you can't see the difference between telling someone: "If you suck my dick, I'll help you move" and "If you help me with my gardening, I'll help you move", then that's on you.

Adding in a working relationship (as is the case with many of Wienstein's accusers), especially where one is in a higher position of authority only compounds that.

It's also works against women too, as you seem to be skirting the MRA line. It's sexual harassment when it's unwarranted.

Surtur
Originally posted by darthgoober
Actually extorting/blackmailing someone with the threat of taking a negative action against the person if they don't give it up is rape. However, demanding sex as a quid pro quo for your own support/help isn't(or at least, it shouldn't be considered such). Seems pretty simple to me.

Then the question becomes if they can prove he blackmailed them into screwing him, if that is the claim that is made.

I will note "A lot of women accused him of it" is not sufficient proof IMO.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Robtard
If you can't see the difference between telling someone: "If you suck my dick, I'll help you move" and "If you help me with my gardening, I'll help you move", then that's on you.

Adding in a working relationship (as is the case with many of Wienstein's accusers), especially where one is in a higher position of authority only compounds that.

It's also works against women too, as you seem to be skirting the MRA line. It's sexual harassment when it's unwarranted.
I see the difference, one makes you a perv. But but just being a perv isn't illegal so the same standard SHOULD apply. Harassment is defined as aggressive pressure or intimidation, and in your examples the first guy is being no more aggressive or intimidating than the second guy. The only difference is the deal being offered.

darthgoober
Originally posted by Surtur
Then the question becomes if they can prove he blackmailed them into screwing him, if that is the claim that is made.

I will note "A lot of women accused him of it" is not sufficient proof IMO.
Oh I'm in no way commenting on anyone's guilt/innocence or what constitutes valid evidence, I was simply addressing how blackmail might impact such a situation.

One Big Mob
Originally posted by Robtard
If you can't see the difference between telling someone: "If you suck my dick, I'll help you move" and "If you help me with my gardening, I'll help you move", then that's on you.

Adding in a working relationship (as is the case with many of Wienstein's accusers), especially where one is in a higher position of authority only compounds that.

It's also works against women too, as you seem to be skirting the MRA line. It's sexual harassment when it's unwarranted. Gardening and helping people move seems like an even trade off for blowjobs. Pretty fair honest trade to me.

MythLord
Originally posted by Surtur
I will note "A lot of women accused him of it" is not sufficient proof IMO.
You wanna tell me that 87 women are all lying just to get a bit of money out of the guy, or because they're petty? That's just grasping at straws.

The NYPD has already noted a few times that they accumulated quite a bit of evidence that prove Harvey performed sexual misconduct and blackmail. Now most of the evidence isn't released to the public, and that's understandable.

Silent Master
Originally posted by MythLord
You wanna tell me that 87 women are all lying just to get a bit of money out of the guy, or because they're petty? That's just grasping at straws.

The NYPD has already noted a few times that they accumulated quite a bit of evidence that prove Harvey performed sexual misconduct and blackmail. Now most of the evidence isn't released to the public, and that's understandable.

To illustrate his point, here is an example.

It wouldn't be all that hard to find a few hundred people on the internet that would be willing to accuse you of being a pedo, does that mean you're a pedo?

MythLord
Originally posted by Silent Master
To illustrate his point, here is an example.

It wouldn't be all that hard to find a few hundred people on the internet that would be willing to accuse you of being a pedo, does that mean you're a pedo?
What? Da fuq is this based on, exactly? Also, that's a mighty fine false equivalent you got there.

Silent Master
Originally posted by MythLord
What? Da fuq is this based on, exactly? Also, that's a mighty fine false equivalent you got there.

What is what based on? and how exactly is it a "false equivalent "?

MythLord
Your point about a hundred people calling me a pedo. Like, how did you get to that arbitrary conclusion?

And it's a false equivalent because getting a hundred random people -- many of whom likely don't even know me -- to make a claim on the internet isn't the same as dozens of women who've worked closely with Harvey and who Weinstein has continuelly tried to get to shut up over the years.

Silent Master
The point of the example was to illustrate surtur's point about the number of accusers not being proof in itself, but I guess the concept was just too complicated for you to understand.

Surtur
Originally posted by MythLord
You wanna tell me that 87 women are all lying just to get a bit of money out of the guy, or because they're petty? That's just grasping at straws.

The NYPD has already noted a few times that they accumulated quite a bit of evidence that prove Harvey performed sexual misconduct and blackmail. Now most of the evidence isn't released to the public, and that's understandable.

I wanna tell you that accusations aren't evidence.

And if the NYPD has noted they have accumulated a bunch of evidence I don't even see why you're trying to argue about the accusations. Since we shouldn't toss someone in jail for the rest of their life based on nothing but accusations.

Robtard
Originally posted by Silent Master
To illustrate his point, here is an example.

It wouldn't be all that hard to find a few hundred people on the internet that would be willing to accuse you of being a pedo, does that mean you're a pedo?

LoL, did you actually think that was a good and comparable point? For real?

Silent Master
Considering that I was responding to someone that said they'd be ok with sending someone to jail based solely on the number of accusers, IE no proof or evidence needed.

Yes.

Robtard
You're comparing random people on the internet making accusations as being the same with the people whom have accused Weinstein, people he personally knew, where in the industry and worked with for the most part.

Your comparison is faulty, silly and rather stupid. No wonder MythLord mocked you.

Silent Master
Whether they know the person or not, accusations without proof should never be enough to send someone to jail.

Robtard
Who has argued that Weinstein should be in prison without proof of crimes?

Silent Master
Surtur asked MythLord a hypothetical

Originally posted by Surtur
Let me ask you this: let us say you were on the jury for this. Would you truly be comfortable sending this man to prison for the rest of his life if the only evidence of rape was the number of accusers?

Originally posted by MythLord
If a boatload of people are accusing someone of being a rapist and an assaulter, then chances are they aren't all just doing it for the money. So yes, I would be comfortable sending him away.

Coming to his house repeatedly doesn't neccessarily mean they wanted to. Harvey was very much their boss, and someone who could end their careers at the time if so he wished. He could've, and likely did, manipulate/blackmail them into that situation.


While I believe Harvey is guilty; unlike MythLord, I think proof should be required before sending people to jail.

Surtur
Originally posted by Silent Master
Surtur asked MythLord a hypothetical






While I believe Harvey is guilty; unlike MythLord, I think proof should be required before sending people to jail.

Bingo, evidence is needed.

MythLord
Originally posted by Robtard
No wonder MythLord mocked you.
Didn't really mock him.

Also, I'd wager several people testifying against him would be considered pretty nice evidence, as well. It's not all an agenda about "them filthy whores wantin' money!".

Silent Master
Originally posted by MythLord
Didn't really mock him.

Also, I'd wager several people testifying against him would be considered pretty nice evidence, as well. It's not all an agenda about "them filthy whores wantin' money!".

The number of people testifying isn't evidence in itself, they have to actually provide information that can be proven.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.