Jump to content

Mariners front office accused of racism


southsider2k5

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I don't want want to get in the way of your character assassination but the lawyers who pursued charges against Dershowitz later admitted it to be a mistake to include him in the lawsuit. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-2016-4

Dershowitz later won a defamation suit against the women who claimed he was involved in a sex crime. The court's record shows woman was lying and they denied her action to sue Dershowitz.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/lawyer-alan-dershowitz-wins-legal-fight-against-woman-over-sex-claims/4ZmoEIcPhwCMPcnOIoWRzH/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

1.) Those are in reply to YOUR snide comments seemingly characterizing women in general who complain as being out for personal gain more likely than actual victims, while simultaneously clinging to the completely disproven belief that this is a much more regular occurrence than any statistic known has ever shown. 

2.) I will also note while you refer to them as "baseless comments" you 100% can't disprove them as every single scientific study proves me right,

3.) which is why you keep pushing the burden over so that when I do prove you wrong again, you can just change the narrative again. 

4.) But as usual you keep circling back to these fallacies in an attempt to get this topic closed, like you do so many others where you are seemingly politically threatened.

1.) You just made this up. Please quote my posts where I said these things. 

2.) Three posters have asked you to provide support for your specific data claims. You have denied all of them and refuse to admit you're full of it.

3.) This was the "plowing through" I was referring to. I have done nothing like this and you like to keep saying you're right to convince yourself. I am not saying I am right about any of this. It seems you won't be providing any support to your initial made up numbers related to Kavanuagh when you derailed the thread, so I  just know you're wrong. As others have pointed out as well. 

4.) Remind me again, who brought up Brett Kavanaugh in a thread about baseball on a site that doesn't allow political talk?

 

Edited by raBBit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

I don't want want to get in the way of your character assassination but the lawyers who pursued charges against Dershowitz later admitted it to be a mistake to include him in the lawsuit. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/alan-dershowitz-jeffrey-epstein-settlement-2016-4

Dershowitz later won a defamation suit against the women who claimed he was involved in a sex crime. The court's record shows woman was lying and they denied her action to sue Dershowitz.

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime--law/lawyer-alan-dershowitz-wins-legal-fight-against-woman-over-sex-claims/4ZmoEIcPhwCMPcnOIoWRzH/

Well, I will grant that I did not find out about this part of the case earlier, but I will also admit that you have a very weird standard for accusing a woman of lying based  on your own 2nd link. A ruling that "you're not party to this defamation lawsuit and you can't join in because you settled a different lawsuit" seems very different from an admission of lying.

Quote

Sidestepping the personalities involved, the West Palm Beach-based appeals court upheld a Broward County judge’s decision that Giuffre had no right to seek sanctions against Dershowitz because she wasn’t a party to the dueling defamation suits that were filed in connection with her sex allegations. Further, it ruled, since the suits were settled for undisclosed terms, other penalties she sought were impossible to carry out.

Renowned South Florida constitutional lawyer Bruce Rogow, who represented Dershowitz, said he was pleased, but not surprised, by the court’s ruling. He called the case “strange,” pointing out that Giuffre was never a party to the defamation litigation and people can’t just butt into lawsuits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, raBBit said:

1.) You just made this up. Please quote my posts where I said these things. 

2.) Three posters have asked you to provide support for your specific data claims. You have denied all of them and refuse to admit you're full of it.

3.) This was the "plowing through" I was referring to.

4.) Remind me again, who brought up Brett Kavanaugh in a thread about baseball on a site that doesn't allow political talk?

 

The same posters who are siting statistics that you feel support you, yet weren't supported?  Sure, ok.   The numbers are there if you want them,as can be seen by the fact I am not the only one quoting them.  You don't want them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, raBBit said:

1.) You just made this up. Please quote my posts where I said these things. 

2.) Three posters have asked you to provide support for your specific data claims. You have denied all of them and refuse to admit you're full of it.

3.) This was the "plowing through" I was referring to.

4.) Remind me again, who brought up Brett Kavanaugh in a thread about baseball on a site that doesn't allow political talk?

 

Quote

 

We've seen some high-profile cases in which men were wrongfully accused of sexual assault: for example, the Duke lacrosse players and the former football player whose alleged victim later admitted she wasn't raped.

But those appear to be anomalies. Studies suggest the prevalence of false reporting on sexual assault is between 2% and 10%, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

And there's a big caveat to those numbers: "Research shows that rates of false reporting are frequently inflated, in part because of inconsistent definitions and protocols," the resource center said.

For example, some law enforcement agencies might label a rape claim as "false" just because there's not enough corroborating evidence to prosecute. (Those cases would be more accurately described as "baseless" rather than "false.")

"It does not mean that some form of sexual assault may not have occurred, but only that from the legal perspective ... the case does not meet the legal criteria, or it is 'baseless,'" the resource center said.

The FBI and the International Association of Chiefs of Police have tried to improve accuracy when it comes to labeling sex assault claims.

They issued guidelines saying certain factors shouldn't be sole reasons for labeling a report "false," such as:

-- Delayed reporting

-- Insufficient evidence to prosecute

-- A victim's decision to not cooperate with investigators

-- Inconsistencies in a victim's statements

But those are just guidelines, not rules.

"While some police departments may follow these guidelines, it is not mandatory, and as a result, many do not," the sexual violence resource center said. And that can lead to more "false" claims than there actually are.

Another reason why sex assault cases can be perceived as false is the frequent lack of witnesses.

Offenders "are deliberate and strategic about not having witnesses. This is intrinsic to the crime," said Kristen Houser, spokeswoman for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center.

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

Well, I will grant that I did not find out about this part of the case earlier, but I will also admit that you have a very weird standard for accusing a woman of lying based  on your own 2nd link. A ruling that "you're not party to this defamation lawsuit and you can't join in because you settled a different lawsuit" seems very different from an admission of lying.

A woman's lawyers having to apologize and acknowledge their mistake pursuing legal action on her behalf is pretty clear standard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Well, I will grant that I did not find out about this part of the case earlier, but I will also admit that you have a very weird standard for accusing a woman of lying based  on your own 2nd link. A ruling that "you're not party to this defamation lawsuit and you can't join in because you settled a different lawsuit" seems very different from an admission of lying.

 

She lied in the first lawsuit leading to her lawyers to apologize for their actions and acknowledge their wrong doing.

The quote you pulled that I bolded is related to a separate lawsuit where Dershowitz was looking to repair his image and her efforts to get involved were stopped by the judge due to procedural court happenings.

Edited by raBBit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The same posters who are siting statistics that you feel support you, yet weren't supported?  Sure, ok.   The numbers are there if you want them,as can be seen by the fact I am not the only one quoting them.  You don't want them.

I haven't said anything about the other posters past that other posters know you're full of it. You quoted specific numbers to an alleged report that you won't provide. You told everyone that "Kavanaugh was in the news" and other unrelated things to sidestep backing up your seemingly made up numbers.

Bolded - This is crazy to have to explain this to someone who posts on a forum ~20 times a day for 15 years but when you make an argument, you are expected to provide the links and references. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim not the people asking where the data is coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Quin locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...