Judge refuses to cancel contract with producer Dr. Luke who allegedly raped Kesha

she didn't want to put him in jail, she simply doesn't want to work with him, it's unfair. zayn quite because he literally was 'unhappy', why can't she? its bulls***t

So we shouldn't ask for evidence, we should just believe everything we hear?

Actually I didn't notice anyone asking for evidence before saying things like "One begins to suspect she may just want to find a way out of her contract with Sony"

Think about it just a little bit. She has a contract with Sony, not the producer. Sony has said it is willing to change the producer. She therefore does not need to come into contact with the producer while working with Sony.

Couple that with the judge's negative comments about the evidence of abuse and rape, and the fact that she worked with the producer (post-supposed abuse/rape) for many years without going to law, and very successfully, we are left to ask does she seek to void the contract, and why now?

It seems that the only reason you have to take sides so strongly here is that something unfavourable happened to a woman, and this pleases you somehow.

i have heard of Sony, but not of Doctor Luke or Kesha ?

What a strong argument you have there, would you like some more ad hom?

But you seem to have another opinion on why Good Bloke has chosen to assume that Sony is definitely in the right and would never engage in shady business practices because multinational corporations literally never do that. Would you like to share it?

It is a simple case of contract law. She signed it and she agreed to the terms.

Now she is trying to get out of it in the only way she thinks will work.

I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is. It's when I say something negative about someone, and use that as evidence against their argument. So for example, this would be ad hominem:

1. I think you're sexist
2. Therefore your argument is not sound.

However this is not ad hominem:

1. You are instinctively and emphatically taking sides against a woman with very limited information or rational reasons to do so
2. Therefore I think you are sexist.




But you seem to have another opinion on why Good Bloke has chosen to assume that Sony is definitely in the right and would never engage in shady business practices because multinational corporations literally never do that. Would you like to share it?

I can't speak for Kesha, but if I worked at a company that employed someone who raped me I would not be satisfied with moving departments. I would want to work at another company. I'm not sure what evidence you were expecting her to produce for a rape she claims happened ten years ago, unless she was supposed to waterboard a confession out of the guy on the witness stand.

I really don't know what happened, or what was presented in court, or the wording of the contract, or the law governing what the ruling should have been. But neither do you, and I think it's very telling in such circumstances that you are celebrating the fact that Sony has won the case and claiming that you somehow know the other party is a liar. I don't believe it's because you have a personal attachment to Sony, or because this case has affected your life in any way. It seems that the only reason you have to take sides so strongly here is that something unfavourable happened to a woman, and this pleases you somehow.

Yes, because that's exactly how contract law, arbitration and civil suits work. Real life is exactly like that Wyclef Jean commercial.


I don't know why you can't even acknowledge the possibility that she's telling the truth and she genuinely doesn't want to choose between suffering financial harm and spending time with her rapist. I'm not asking you to stand on a rooftop, banging a drum and advocating for Kesha. All I'm saying is that your instinct to claim she must be lying because (???) does not paint you in a very good light.

Furthermore her lawyer Mark Geragos has already tried it on with Dr Luke in a previous rape allegation which was proven false.

Thank you. That answers one of my questions. The producer has sued for libel.

Not on this case though.

You seem to be implying that I have misogynistic tendencies. Either that or it was your baby I ate for breakfast this morning.

I think I made it clear in my first post that I do not necessarily believe that the producer is innocent. If you read my posts again you'll find that I have asked questions, not made any dogmatic statements about which side of the fence the truth lies, and one of those questions was why the producer did not sue.

Kesha is not a Sony employee; she has a non-employment contractual relationship with the company and, probably, so does the producer. Because of this, I find it difficult to believe that a situation that could reasonably be resolved as Sony has suggested and that was not apparently a problem for many years after the alleged rape is unconnected with a falling-out between Kesha and Sony that has nothing to do with the producer.

Where the truth lies, frankly, I neither know nor care.

The judge clearly agrees with me.

She has been given the option not to spend any time with her alleged rapist. To which she refused.
Furthermore her lawyer Mark Geragos has already tried it on with Dr Luke in a previous rape allegation which was proven false.

Her lawyer seems very unprofessional, possibly to the extent that he will be held liable. Incidentally, calling the lawyer's professionalism into question is a lot closer to ad hominem than anything I've said here.

It says:

Meanwhile, Kesha’s case against Dr Luke continues to inch forward. In October, the Nashville-raised pop singer wrote that the producer had “sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abused her” since they began collaborating, in 2005. Dr Luke called the allegations an “outrageous fiction”, countersuing Kesha and her mother, Pebe Sebert

Have I interpreted that wrongly?