Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • AndalayBay

      Orphan Attachments   07/31/2018

      I have been doing some housekeeping lately and I've noticed that I had a lot of orphaned attachments. Attachments get orphaned when the PM or post is deleted without removing the attachment first. Deleting a PM or post does not delete the attachment and the file or image remain on the server. I'd like to ask all members to go through their attachments and delete any attachments you don't need anymore or those that have been orphaned. Where can I get a list of my attachments? Click on your display name in the upper right corner of the forums and pick "My Attachments" from the drop-down list. How can I tell an attachment is orphaned? If the PM has been deleted, you'll see a message like this in your attachment list: Unfortunately there is no message if the post has been deleted, so please check your old posts. We do purge old birthday threads every once in a while. Also some hosted projects have been shut down, so you may have orphaned attachments on one of those locations. Thanks!
Sign in to follow this  
Vincent

Jeremy Soule Rape Accusations

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Vincent said:

I don't disagree with you, @Sigurd Stormhand
Not talking about you but I think it's possible to have a discussion when we're on opposing sides of an issue without personal attacks, which is something some people clearly aren't capable of, as they've demonstrated on numerous occasions now. I refuse to have a back and forth with someone like that, but I digress.

I will refrain from replying any further on the subject unless there is any relevant news to discuss.

You started out by insulting Arthmoor just for holding views which are, frankly, not controversial - regardless of any other opinions he may hold.

Is he the most diplomatic debater around? No - but he is not the one who resorted to ad hominem first.

I have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks at all - which is why I took extra care to demolish all the points of your argument without resorting to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating the truth is not an ad hominem attack. Every time a subject like this comes up he's quick to talk down to people like he's the moral authority of the community, and frankly I'm sick of it. I don't care what contributions he's made or what kind of reputation he has. At the end of the day, what I said holds true. Also, explain to me how exactly you "demolished" my points. Most of what you said was complete bullshit like "we shouldn't call them by their first names."


Anyway, I just came here to post this.

http://www.nathalielawhead.com/candybox/my-follow-up-post

This will probably be my last post on this site, honestly.

 

Edited by Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expecting someone to follow proper due process of law, and to respect the Constitution, is not me pontificating a moral position. It's me being aghast at anyone with any level of education in the 1st world claiming that this man is guilty and needs to prove himself innocent of all charges. That's NOT how this shit works, ever.

File charges, investigate the evidence, and take it to trial. That's ALL I'm expecting out of this woman. She clearly is not interested in doing this through the proper channels so she's turned to social media to exploit #metoo in her favor. It's disgusting and Soule should be filing a defamation suit against her instead.

All you need to do to understand this position is to put yourself in the shoes of one being falsely accused. Suppose someone decided to go on Twitter and accuse you of stealing their social security check out of the mail. Suppose this person demands you be thrown in jail until you can prove you didn't steal it. How are you even supposed to prove your innocence in a situation like that? I'd genuinely love to know.

This isn't 1592. The accused has rights. This woman is flagrantly violating his and there need to be consequences for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vincent said:

Stating the truth is not an ad hominem attack. Every time a subject like this comes up he's quick to talk down to people like he's the moral authority of the community, and frankly I'm sick of it. I don't care what contributions he's made or what kind of reputation he has. At the end of the day, what I said holds true. Also, explain to me how exactly you "demolished" my points. Most of what you said was complete bullshit like "we shouldn't call them by their first names."


Anyway, I just came here to post this.

http://www.nathalielawhead.com/candybox/my-follow-up-post

This will probably be my last post on this site, honestly.

 

Your argument boils down to guilty until proven innocent. There are actual real-world examples of why this doesn't work, especially in cases like this.

Presumption of innocence is fundamental to all modern English Common Law legal systems, which (the US and Canada are in the broadest sense these are still English Common Law systems) are founded on this principle. A principle largely established in the then-colony of New York.

Clearly you don't understand what the ad hominem attack is. It means attacking the person's argument by attacking the person's character. It doesn't matter is Arthmoor is, shall we say, not the most diplomatic of people - all that matters is if he's right or not. If you are an intelligent person then it shouldn't matter how he expresses his argument so long as it's coherent. In this case pretty much his only contribution has been to protest against your damning Jeremy Soule as guilty based on one woman's testimony - because only one woman has actually accused him of an actual crime.

 

Edited by Sigurd Stormhand
Edited for typo's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The woman’s posts are so long, I can’t read the whole thing. Perhaps that’s part of her intent. I find it disturbing that she’s able to post all these accusations but nobody is demanding that she take her claims to the police. She says that she complained to various authorities, but none of them were the police. She does just enough to make it seem like her complaints are valid, but doesn’t actually take them to the authorities that could actually investigate and press charges if any are warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true. If you compare this to the case of Tristine Banon, in that case she did eventually go to the Police, and they investigated and deemed her story credible despite the expiration of the statue of limitations. In that case she didn't initially go to the Police because this was in France and her mother was/had been in a relationship at the time and basically slut-shamed her.

I do understand why abuse victims don't go to the Police, especially straight away, but they don't usually post huge screeds about how their abuser made an effort to tank their professional career, either.

Off the back of this Zoe Quinn also accused someone of abuse - he killed himself after being exposed to the court of public opinion.

Edited by Sigurd Stormhand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also one other thing that's not being considered. Statute of Limitations. We've seen plenty of examples of this already where someone trots out an accusation 30 years after the fact and expects the perpetrator to be charged. That's not going to happen obviously. So another important question to ask of this woman is exactly how long ago did this supposedly happen? Her 2 screeds on the subject don't make that at all clear, which I think was intentional on her part. Nevermind that she also filled both screeds with a lot of completely irrelevant information about the sales performance of her free games.

I'd rather not have to entertain the more cynical theory my brain cooked up that she's doing this all to generate publicity. Cause you know, any publicity is good publicity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arthmoor said:

There's also one other thing that's not being considered. Statute of Limitations. We've seen plenty of examples of this already where someone trots out an accusation 30 years after the fact and expects the perpetrator to be charged. That's not going to happen obviously. So another important question to ask of this woman is exactly how long ago did this supposedly happen? Her 2 screeds on the subject don't make that at all clear, which I think was intentional on her part. Nevermind that she also filled both screeds with a lot of completely irrelevant information about the sales performance of her free games.

I'd rather not have to entertain the more cynical theory my brain cooked up that she's doing this all to generate publicity. Cause you know, any publicity is good publicity?

The alleged rape took place 11 years ago.

Edited by Sigurd Stormhand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, 11 years ago in which state? Cause apparently the 50 states couldn't agree on the limitation so they all seem to have defined that on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned the Statute of Limitations in one of my previous posts. I also said that Jeremy could counter with a libel suit.

There is no Statute of Limitations in Canada on indictable crimes like murder, rape, kidnapping and major theft (over $5000). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Murder, rape, and kidnapping I can understand, but good lord, you mean I could steal your car and get prosecuted for it 70 years later if I got caught?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. :rofl: In reality, the police wouldn’t bother. We had our first car stolen and the police didn’t even bother investigating. It was a shit box and I was actually glad it was gone. :P The cops are usually after high-end theft rings. Depending on the size and sophistication of the ring, it can take several years to track them down and gather evidence, but quite a few have been caught. Being able to take the time to investigate and make a case ensures prosecution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arthmoor said:

Murder, rape, and kidnapping I can understand, but good lord, you mean I could steal your car and get prosecuted for it 70 years later if I got caught?

You think that's bad?

There's no statute of limitation on any crime here - there's some of contract law - but nothing that comes before a criminal caught.

 

Stole a twinky 90 years ago?

 

Tough break if you get caught, granddad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×