Harvey Weinstein fighting back

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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 "?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Originally posted by Robtard
No wonder MythLord mocked you.

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!".

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.