|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 11, @05:50PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
It is strange to see a complaint about the lack of evidence coming from this board, given the antagonism, emoting, and venous negativity, including personal attacks, that resulted when some of the individuals from this site began a barrage of assaults on the ifeminist.com board were asked to give evidence and sound arguments to support their assumptions/assertions/proclamations.
When asked to provide evidence for the claims made, the responses ranged from personal attacks, insults and as hominem attacks, to avoidance, red herrings, and a laundry list of logical fallacies including but not limited to: appeals to emotion and appeals to "common knowledge."
I sincerely hope that I have the wrong impression of this site as it was represented by those who initiated this assault on those who support individual rights regardless of sex.
However it should be clear to those who participate here, that there are some who are doing their level best to continue in the tradition of the gender feminists, the radical feminists, and create as well as feed a culture of division and hatred.
I applaud the call for evidence, but how about a consistent application of this criteria?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, perhaps you might identify yourself.
Secondly, what are you talking about with the ifems site and what does that have to do with this supreme court case? It looks to me like you have an ax to grind with a few people and you are using an inappropriate platform to spout your angst. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread on your concern. It seems that would be a better way to do things than hijacking this thread.
Stand Your Ground Forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 11, @08:14PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It sure sounds like Brian Tomlinson over at iFeminists. He loves to talk just to hear his own empty head rattle. Go over and read some of his posts. He does not argue points - he just attacks the way people express themselves, holding them up to his self-determined standards of logical reasoning and denying the validity of anyone else's convictions, opinions or feelings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do you actually have a point here, you massive dingleberry? Something actually germaine to the issue here? A position, point of view on the topic?
Gender fems -rad fems - what the FUCK are you talking about? If you are going to equate pointing out levels of different application of the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States with Gender Pheminism, you seriously need to have your head removed from your ass, or go back to the Ms. Boards or whatever other fucking rock you crawled out from under.
Jesus H. What a femboy shitheel.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 12, @10:15AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
The ruling by the SJC is another move at lowering the standard of due process; we should all be concerned about the fact that this was a unanimous decision.
How does a company defend itself against such a lawsuit if "direct evidence...which is hard to come by...sic..." is not the standard a decision is based upon?
This decision now opens the floodgate for reformist (i.e. Marxist, feminist...) lawyers to wreck havoc in our courts, and will help establish a growing class on "victims" looking for a payout.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's possible that since they were deciding about the matter from a civil standpoint (ie, this is a matter of a suit at law in a civil court, not a criminal court), that they were simply upholding the already well-established standard of evidence in civil courts, which is that a preponderance is sufficient to bring a verdict of liability. In fact I think that based on the wording of this report that they were just deciding about whether the case can even be presented to a civil jury, which would also be in keeping with a preponderance of evidence standard.
STILL, it is disturning in this sense: practically speaking, without much hard evidence, one can get a judge to allow a civil case to be brought to trial conceivably on nothing but uncorroborated testimony and circumstantial observations as 'evidence'. While observations of all kinds are fine as fodder for general discussion outside courts of law, within courts of law where people's freedoms and property is at stake, there ought to be a higher level of standards of evidence, and given that civil rulings can as badly if not more affect a person's life and well-being as criminal rulings, the whole trend we've seen of late wherein much less evidence is required to convict or hold liable someone for something is very disturbing.
Obviously, the way men get so abhorrently screwed in the divorce and custody court system is just one example of how off-track the courts have gotten in terms of throwing out standards of evidence in criminal and civil matters. It's one thing for private citizens to argue with opinions wrought from observational and anecdotal evidence to support their opinions; it's another thing when courts do so. And that's the problem we're having-- courts are using such evidence as the basis for more and more of their decisions, leaving the interests of justice far behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys
This is my line of country - I'm from a Human Resources background.
In the UK we have something called 'Employment Tribunals'; semi-independent bodies of three persons - chaired by a qualified employment lawyer who make decisions based on cases such as Sex Discrimination. They are under the overall charge of the Departmnent of Trade and Industry (known as the DTI)
To a certain degree the system works. The evidence requirement sounds pretty much that outlined in the original piece, and the decisions reached are by and large fair. When it comes to 'he said/she said' cases they usually work on the balance of probability - which has a potential for abuse in that we tend to end up with what Plato called "the Tyranny of the Majority". For those of you with a legal mien, discrimination in the UK is based on the 'But for...." test. "But for the fact that the plaintiff was female/disabled etc they would have been treated differently"
Where the system particularly fails in the UK is through intimidation. Awards for successful applicants under Race, Sex, Disability etc Discrimination can receive unlimited awards (as opposed to unfair dismissal which has a ceiling of around £57,000 [$90,000 (?)]) The "disadvantaged minority" groups tend to pursue such cases aggressively, and negative publicity can be very damaging for an employer given the stranglehold these groups have on the media/public opinion etc etc. The threat of Tribunal is often enough to secure 'positive discrimination' decisions.
Further hindering matters are the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), which is currently chaired by a feminist from the (so-called) Equal Pay advocacy sector, which promotes a pro-feminist stance. We are just going through the Equal Pay nonsense at the moment. The other element is the DTI itself. The Secretary of State at the Department is another feminist (known as one of Blair's Bimbo's - a lot of female MP's are the product of positive discrimination having been selected from all-female shortlists at Constituency level). When Tribunals reach decisions the Secretary doesn't like she can refer the matter back for further hearing - until she gets a decision she likes.
At present we have two on-going cases; firstly a woman complaining about bonus payments and two gentlemen over 65 (statutory retirement age in the UK) who were sacked for being over 65. As the over 65 is predominantly male, it was considered indirect sex discrimination. The DTI has challenged this ruling and the EOC has kept schtum !
Things are, however, not all black. One of my own pet projects has been to agitate (shit-stirring) about Maternity Rights (and the lack of rights for fathers) within the HR profession. There has been quite a bit of coverage and heat generated - so much so that the EOC is to review the area.
Watch this space.
Respect
ThunderChild
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 12, @10:56AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I went and saw your posts over at ifeminists.org. God, what total Nowhere Man fluff you operate on!
Go play in traffic, Mr. Spock.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
