Hal 9000

Uhmmm, I hope you mean metaphorically!

"Women cannot do this. They have to live with a certain amount of fear." You're suggesting that women live in a constant state of fear...right?

You're having drinks with these women and they're afraid of you?

It's a witch hunt, the UN has already showed its hand. They know exactly what their findings will be, nothing Israel can do about it.

I'm saying there are differences jacee, I'm also saying that as a society sexual harassment is looked at the same way that sexual assault is. Sexual harassment is anything from saying "let a man do it" to "I can see your snatch in that dress" or inappropriate touching. Even sexual assault ranges from stealing a kiss or touching a leg to dragged in the bushes rape. Maybe you're missing something! To prove my point, we don't know if one of these woman was called a bitch, touched her, mixed up his signals or whatever, but that doesn't stop you people from ranting about "aggravated sexual assault", "rape", "predators" and "perps" because it's you people who refuse to think in any any other terms than "men are all rapists". If things like "you look hot or sexy" and "It's better done by a woman/man" is sexual harassment (and maybe it is), then I guarantee you we've all been victims. If stealing a kiss, getting groped, having an uggo hit on you or waking up with an undesirable is sexual assault, then most of us are victims of that too. If we're talking about rape or violent crimes, then I'm all on board and would hope...expect women /children to come forward.

Yes, I keep forgetting...my bad! Anyway, no one (although I could be wrong) is suggesting that women are asking to to be raped, certainly not me. This thread is not even about rape. It's about an apparent sexual assault - of unknown nature, and how we recognize sexual assault and proceed with accusations. Just because I believe in accountability and process of law, does not make me unsympathetic to sexual assault cases.

Hitops made comment that you called disgusting, i'm just providing a cite that you asked for.

Yes, it's just as I said. It's other posters who are bringing the rape allegations into a sexual harassment thread. I'll report your thinly veiled comment about me being a "perp"!

Winerip notes that between 2005 and 2010, "more than 60 percent of claims involving sexual violence handled by United Educators"--an insurance company owned by member schools--"involved young women who were so drunk they had no clear memory of the assault." We know from Sgt. Cournoyer that the accused young men typically are drinking to excess, too. What is called the problem of "sexual assault" on campus is in large part a problem of reckless alcohol consumption, by men and women alike. (Based on our reporting, the same is true in the military, at least in the enlisted and company-grade officer ranks.) Which points to a limitation of the drunk-driving analogy. If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn't determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver's sex. But when two drunken college students "collide," the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him. As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser's having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt: Stanford's definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people's idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs "when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol." In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage. In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that "if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other." In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

I think one of the failings of the legal system is their inability to properly categorize the definitions of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. In their effort to tell us that it's all equally bad, they've inadvertently convoluted the meanings. Look at cybercoma, we are discussing a possible (from every account minor) sexual harassment issue and she is shouting "rape is not a consequence" every chance she gets. Rape is bad - we all get it! Sexual harassment, however, can be as little as calling someone a bitch or suggesting out loud that some woman is dressed like a slut today...or saying she looks hot. It's not all the same. Telling a woman she looks hot or has a nice butt, is a long way from rape. Another thing, sexual harassment does not just come from guys who want to bed you, sometimes it's from guys who don't care for the way a women might carry herself and the sexual harassment could be an insult. In other words; many women still go to work and use their sexuality for advancement or simply to be cutsey and have guys help them or even do their work for them. If they get called out by a male co-worker for doing that, that is another case of sexual harassment. P.s - I know i'll get called out for implying "women asked for it" or something stupid like that, but if you disagree that some women still use sexuality in the workplace - you're truly naive.

Because you can't find a better system - that's why. It's all wonderful for you to be a champion for WCR, cybercoma and Jacee and shout things like changing the system for the betterment of women, while Big Guy, Argus (and others) and me take the heat for using logic and suggesting that our legal system, although not perfect, has to follow certain philosophies; that is "innocent until proven guilty" and "burden of proof". If you can think of a system that makes it easier for victims to prosecute while keeping these philosophies, then let's hear it.

What type of change might that be? We could implement a system where a man's word carries half the weight as a woman's. That would be good, a man would need a second witness to prove his innocence and if it was a he said/she said, he would be found guilty.

I'm not narrow minded, I listen and don't question what vets tell me about WW2. Do I always agree? Not always, but I have enough respect to not offer my opinions on the war they fought. P.S - I've never heard a vet ever suggest that going into WW2 was wrong...useless or whatever you say you're spewing to them. I don't believe you, but as I mentioned earlier, if anyone is gonna tell someone a BS thoughtless opinion, it would be a lefty elitist.

Does multiculturalism only refer to people of colour other than white. What about the Irish, Swedes or hippies? Are there any rules or allowances that we have to provide for them?

Well, I guess I should've expected that...what a coincidence!

I don't care what lip service you pay to the troops, go tell a WW2 vet that the Nazis were no big deal and i'll watch a 90 YO man slap your face. Punk!

Ok, so you think that we should have remembrance day...or something of a "we made a mistake day". You think that having planes fly-by and cannons as a tribute is "glorification" so what? should we should leave the military out of remembrance day? You think all wars were a mistake and we shoulda left the Nazis alone. You don't understand that these war veterans want this, that it means a lot to them (and their fallen mates) to be recognized for their sacrifice. I know a few WW2 vets and more than the crowds and politicians, they want to be honoured by the next generation of Canadian solider and the cannons and planes are very much a part of how their new brothers and sisters honour them. You don't care for the message? Boo fucking Hoo, it's not up to you to even have an opinion, just show your respect or stfu. But, you lefties always pull out the elitist BS attitude and think the world wants to hear your opinion. How can you even pretend that you respect or honour these people...in any way. You disgust me!

That's like trying to prove a negative, you'll never agree with any answer I give. You, obviously feel that the world, Europe and Canada would be a better place - Is that what you're suggesting?

But, surely you'd agree that we had no choice but to enter WW1, WW2 and Korea...right?

Ok, I've seen this; "Maybe instead of Remembrance Day we should have Contemplative Day were we show that respect, and at the same time try to figure out how not to be so stupid again." You say, stupid again, In what way were Canadians stupid in war?

To me, it sorta seems like a somber event more than a "glorification of war". Could you be more specific in what glorification you saw.

What parts? And why bother questioning the ceremony anyway?

Ok, my bad! So, what did you mean by that comment?

I don't think she should have to name anyone if she isn't making an accusation. She should leave out possible "hints" though.

Yes, the disrespect and politics started on post #2 with this; "Make a donation if you like, leave the poppy."