Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Feminist reaction to kesha contract trial shows why it's scary to be accused of rape. watch

    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    It also says 'or when you were not capable of consent'. The capacity to give valid consent is one of the most problematic areas of the criminal justice system, the courts still don't really have a consistent idea of when someone is capable and when they aren't. That means that this part of the question makes the entire question incredibly subjective.

    Also I don't think its that hard to imagine that people who feel that they have been raped would read this question, realise what its about and then ignore the specific wording.

    As for the lack of incentive to lie thats a very feeble point. People signed the Oregon Petition using the names of the Spice Girls and Star Wars characters, what could their motivation have been?
    There's constant review and evaluation of the robustness of the CSEW including technical analysis. The questions concerned were restructured in 2013...following 3 years of parallel sampling of the two different structures to ensure the change was improving the accuracy of responses.

    For someone who's so keen on evidence and rationality you're very quick to dismiss an extremely thorough and well researched and managed survey based on very little understanding of the methodology.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    She has lied at least once during legal proceedings.
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    She has said that she was not raped in a sworn oath back in 2011.

    How about that for evidence?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    so the final time the boy cried wolf...was he lying? Or was his community wrong for playing the 'he's lied before' card and dismissing him?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    so the final time the boy cried wolf...was he lying? Or was his community wrong for playing the 'he's lied before' card and dismissing him?
    When you are sworn under oath it makes it a lot more important than "he said, she said". In fact lying under oath is a felony and can result in up to 5 years in prison. She has, in a court of law said she was not raped or drugged by Dr Luke. That is enough evidence to say he is innocent.

    So she is either a felon or she is lying in the most recent case and defaming Dr Luke.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    so the final time the boy cried wolf...was he lying? Or was his community wrong for playing the 'he's lied before' card and dismissing him?
    There is one huge difference the boy who cried wolf wasn't saying there was a wolf 10 years ago, that story is about if you say something enough times you won't be believed in this situation she has gave 2 different statements and one is correct the other is a criminal offence.

    Are you happy to convict him when there is at least a 50-50 chance she is lying this time?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    There's constant review and evaluation of the robustness of the CSEW including technical analysis. The questions concerned were restructured in 2013...following 3 years of parallel sampling of the two different structures to ensure the change was improving the accuracy of responses.

    For someone who's so keen on evidence and rationality you're very quick to dismiss an extremely thorough and well researched and managed survey based on very little understanding of the methodology.
    You've completely ignored what I said. There is no way you reasonably expect a person with no legal education to decide when they're capable of giving consent if legal experts can't decide. There is also nothing to prevent people from lying.

    Also could you post a link to the information about this restructuring


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Umm.. feminists have nothing to do with Kesha's case. They really don't. As much as i dislike radical feminists as the next guy or girl, I cannot put the blame on feminists on this one. Kesha could possible be telling the truth this time. Its not the impossible, ya know.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    More worryingly is the way he's still being vilified when she's previously under oath said that it categorically didn't happen.

    theres a difference between blaming the victim, and going on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Just because its rape doesnt mean it should be any different.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    Umm.. feminists have nothing to do with Kesha's case. They really don't. As much as i dislike radical feminists as the next guy or girl, I cannot put the blame on feminists on this one. Kesha could possible be telling the truth this time. Its not the impossible, ya know.
    its not impossible but the reaction towards this with the #freekesha campaign shows how people will take accusations as fact and want people punished without any supporting evidence.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    You've completely ignored what I said. There is no way you reasonably expect a person with no legal education to decide when they're capable of giving consent if legal experts can't decide. There is also nothing to prevent people from lying.

    Also could you post a link to the information about this restructuring


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You're splitting hairs and dismissing evidence based on your assumptions to dismiss evidence. On a methodology that has been tested and evaluated and to rule out any bias that could have a statistically significant impact on the survey results. That doesn't seem like you're debating in good faith or interested in any evidence that doesn't back up your own gut feeling.

    The consultation and review of the questions about IPV/SSA were the first things to come up when I googled for the BCS /CSEW methodology. They aren't a secret if you're interested you shouldn't struggle to find either that or the annual technical report into the robustness of the methodology and results. If you're interested then you can find the information very easily but I'm on my phone browser so you'll need to do your own googling.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macy1998)
    Umm.. feminists have nothing to do with Kesha's case. They really don't. As much as i dislike radical feminists as the next guy or girl, I cannot put the blame on feminists on this one. Kesha could possible be telling the truth this time. Its not the impossible, ya know.
    If she is telling the truth she would be a felon.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Let's be clear here:

    If Kesha was allowed to get out of her contract for saying she was raped without a shred of evidence other than her own word, then all contracts would be 100% meaningless because the person bound by the contract would simply be allowed to say they were raped to get out of the contract.

    Rape is unfortunately a very hard crime to prove. But that's not anyone's fault. It's not because society is sexist or because the patriarcy is conspiring against women's it is because of the nature of the crime.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    When you are sworn under oath it makes it a lot more important than "he said, she said". In fact lying under oath is a felony and can result in up to 5 years in prison. She has, in a court of law said she was not raped or drugged by Dr Luke. That is enough evidence to say he is innocent.

    So she is either a felon or she is lying in the most recent case and defaming Dr Luke.
    when was this, like 5 years ago?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    There is one huge difference the boy who cried wolf wasn't saying there was a wolf 10 years ago, that story is about if you say something enough times you won't be believed in this situation she has gave 2 different statements and one is correct the other is a criminal offence.

    Are you happy to convict him when there is at least a 50-50 chance she is lying this time?
    no, but there needs to be a fair trial. We can't just say he's innocent because of something she's said before just like we can't just convict him.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Trial by media, guilty until proven innocent. Anyone who says otherwise is an apologist, obviously.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    when was this, like 5 years ago?
    Yes. The court documents were unsealed last Tuesday.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    no, but there needs to be a fair trial. We can't just say he's innocent because of something she's said before just like we can't just convict him.
    Something she said under oath, do you understand what that means?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DiddyDec)
    Something she said under oath, do you understand what that means?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you don't think either of them deserve a fair trial?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    You're splitting hairs and dismissing evidence based on your assumptions to dismiss evidence. On a methodology that has been tested and evaluated and to rule out any bias that could have a statistically significant impact on the survey results. That doesn't seem like you're debating in good faith or interested in any evidence that doesn't back up your own gut feeling.

    The consultation and review of the questions about IPV/SSA were the first things to come up when I googled for the BCS /CSEW methodology. They aren't a secret if you're interested you shouldn't struggle to find either that or the annual technical report into the robustness of the methodology and results. If you're interested then you can find the information very easily but I'm on my phone browser so you'll need to do your own googling.
    I'm not splitting hairs, I'm asking two very simple questions that can't provide an answer to

    You can't claim to have evidence of something but tell the other person they have to find it themselves.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    no, but there needs to be a fair trial. We can't just say he's innocent because of something she's said before just like we can't just convict him.
    The point you're missing is there isn't enough evidence for a trial. Also she's explicitly said it didn't happen so if it did then fine, release her from her contract and put her in prison


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lilacwanda28)
    So you don't think either of them deserve a fair trial?
    It would be a waste of money since she has already given evidence that it didn't happen.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 25, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.