Hi, Jamie
May I raise a question of vocabulary?
Does to level an accusation mean to concoct/cook up an accusation?
Many thanks in advance.
No, to level an accusation simply means to make an accusation. You can also level charges.
According to the risk management powerpoint presentation that the HR rep here reads to us every year, this is what we’re supposed to do if we’re offended by another employee:
- Approach the offending coworker. Do not smile.
- Tell the offending coworker something along the lines of, “I am not smiling. I find your actions/comments offensive. Please refrain from such further actions/comments.”
That’s supposed to nip it in the bud.
There’s the PC psychobabble definition of sexual harassment, according to which something as innocuous as a cockeyed smile may be interpreted as a lascivious leer frowned upon as a solid example of sexual harassment.
Common sense tells most of us to simply avoid the people who take such a stance: if a person’s skin is so thin – or he is so vindictive – that he would attempt to ruin someone’s career based on a glance, that person is someone most reasonable people wish to avoid.
Generally there’s some playful banter, but most people understand it as such, and it’s done with a chuckle – clearly in a non-serious, non-intrusive, non-threatening manner.
In other words, most of us are just fine BSing each other for kicks. If someone doesn’t like it, such talk ceases – we respect each other.
Hi, Tom
I think the issue is that a woman can use false harrassment accusations as a means of getting rid of someone she doesn’t like, or someone who hampers her to climb up the career ladder. And she wouldn’t be held liable for her prejudicial actions, if the court proves that there was no harrassment at all. But if the court mistakingly makes a ruling against the harrasser, that accusation will have a detrimental impact on his career.
yeah, it’s sad. (about the workplace restrictions on non-threatening fun)
In terms of courts:
The US tort system almost invites false accusations and the resulting bogus litigation. A possible fix would be if the loser had to pay the legal fees of the winner – that would likely keep some of the BS lawsuits from ever wasting any of the court’s time (and the people’s money).
Even if the case is thrown out as frivolous and the plaintiff universally ridiculed as a fraud, the defendant still must pay his attorney.
If the above rule change took effect, the fraudulent litigant (whose case was thrown out) would have to pay the legal fees of both himself and the defendant.
Probably the Karma is getting back at the 'man’kind 
Men (not all of them) have over the years harassed women sexually and now it’s payback time
What a strange comment. Many people have tried to prove things, but have lost their case anyway.
Really? Were you there each time a man sexually touched a woman?
You told me we should lock them away and only let them out at the end of their sentence or when they are no longer a threat to society. Oh, and you said that we shouldn’t give them therapy. You then said that there would never be a time when an offender is no longer a threat. So, where does that leave us and them? Execute them? Lock 'em up and throw away the key?
In some cases, yes, because there is no pill for sociopathy.
No cure?
Well, let’s see. It’s been demonstrated through sad trial and error that therapy doesn’t stop them. It’s also been demonstrated through painful trial and error that castration doesn’t stop them. It’s unethical to castrate them, because if the man is innocent and turns out to have been railroaded, you can never put the innocent man’s body parts back on. It’s immoral to execute them. The only thing left is to keep them incarcerated.
Molly, would you approve of state-mandated hysterectomies, clitorectomies and mastectomies for women pedophiles? All those parts were in action when a relative of mine was sexually abused by a female babysitter. Somehow I always hear feminists call for castration of male pedophiles, but similar surgery is never suggested for women who abuse children. I’m left to assume that a certain class of women simply wants an excuse to remove men’s genitals.
Of course I was. I am a supernatural being, can see everything and can be in several places at the same time, just by willing it.
So you would say the same for capital punishment for murder, right? If you execute an innocent person…
I might if it would help prevent them reoffending. Does it?
A rather naive and somewhat mysoginistic conclusion, IMO.
Figures.
That’s right.
So you would say the same for capital punishment for murder, right? If you execute an innocent person…
That’s right.
The thing I can’t understand is why you think we should avoid castrating someone beacuse he may be innocent, but you think it’s OK to slam a could-be-innocent in jail for life. Can you explain your thinking on that, Jamie?
The thing I can’t understand is why you’re so in love with the idea of cutting off a man’s reproductive anatomy. There must be some deep-seated psychological reason why you want to see men castrated.
If a man is mistakenly convicted of a heinous crime, and he is sentenced to life in prison, in 2, 5, even 14 years, he can be released and helped to integrate himself back into normal society as best he can. Meanwhile, in prison, there are a lot of productive and even important things he can do with his life. He can study and get a university degree, he can learn a trade, he can minister to other prisoners and help them change their thinking, and perform quite a few other good works. Therefore, those years will not be totally lost.
If you mistakenly convict an innocent man of the same crime, but you sentence him to death, and he is not exonerated before his execution, once he is found to be innocent, you can’t give him his life back.
If you mistakenly convict a man of sexual abuse, and then you castrate him, you can’t give him his anatomy back.
In both cases, it’s better to keep the person in prison, all in one piece.
Do you believe that the state should sterilize black people and the “feeble-minded”? There was a big movement to do this in the 1920s and 1930s – and some black people even went along with it – and the arguments for something so insane sounded just as reasonable as the ones for castrating child molesters do today.
did you see the film hard candy? it deals with that subject in quite an unusual way
More of The Disney Guide to Psychology? :lol:
Do you believe that the state should sterilize black people and the “feeble-minded”? There was a big movement to do this in the 1920s and 1930s – and some black people even went along with it – and the arguments for something so insane sounded just as reasonable as the ones for castrating child molesters do today.
In the latter, maybe we’d do better asking the parents of those who have been abused, or even the victims themselves.
Yes, we know that, but it seems you suggest keeping such men in prison till the end of their life. Am I right?
But what is insane about castrating paedophiles, if we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty?
Many parents of molested children actually want the suspect not just castrated, but killed, and some of them actually do the deed themselves. This is not a good policy, considering how many thousands of men have been falsely accused and convicted of rape and child molestation.
Or until they’re exonerated. At least they’re not dead, and if they’re innocent they still have a chance to do some good in their lives or to be released.
Nothing can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Besides, the standard of justice is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. If it were the latter, you couldn’t convict anyone of anything.
The insane part about castrating pedophiles is that it gives the state power over the physical integrity of the individual citizen, just as state-ordered lobotomies and judicially ordered sterilization of the “feeble-minded” (usually lower-class and/or dark skinned) did in the bad old days. This was and is usually based on the “expert testimony” of some intellectual, such as a psychologist, and those people have a long track record of being wrong.
The insane thing is trusting the state with that level of power over the individual in the justice system. It’s little different from mandating abortion in a one-child policy.