How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
I like how the justification for making it even more like an actual witch hunt was simply "we're convicting less people of rape, obviously something's wrong with the courts".
Like the idea of rape being actually down isn't something that even needs considering.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
He : "Oh God I want meatballs so bad."
She : "Yeah meatballs would be nice, I want your meatballs in my mouth."
He : My place?
She : Sure.
Police complaint :
She : "He forcefully fed me, I never talked about wanting to eat with him!"
He : "She came to my place and we had dinner. Here are text messages leading up to that."
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
I find it rather suspicious that you only now within the last week started enforcing these rules (which at first glance, makes it look like you made it up on the spot) when he and several other posters have posts just like this going back many many months no issue, because it was part of a wider discussion that frankly needs to be had. If we aren't allowed to talk about it because the subject has a pussy, what was the point of making a KIA2 Win in the first place if you enforce reddit's bullshit regardless?
Reddit jannies can quit Reddit, but not the Reddit attitude.
Remember when AOV decided to deepthroat the halfkia mods and chose to sacrifice the new place to his delusions of coming together by forcibly outsourcing any discussion on modding, leadership etc. to kiameta? Remember when Dom decided that pointing out the skin color of a perpetrator was doubleplusungood when it was a black on white crime?
Remember when the writing was on the wall for literal MONTHS and they wasted like two months stroking eachother off instead of just creating kia.win only to have it "snatched away at the last moment" by the faggots over on halfkia and we were once again forced to play number 2?
These people can't help themself. They just HAVE to be worthless little sandpit tyrants.
I made up all the rules on the spot months ago. If you think I didn't enforce them, it's likely because I missed them.
The issue is not about the subject about you having a problem with women. The issue is about declaring an entire gender to be your enemy. You'll notice I haven't done anything about 'should women be allowed to vote'. That's still an ideological frame work to go off of.
Women as an enemy demographic conspiring to murder all men is pretty fucking bonkers. There has to be a line somewhere for the sake of basic decorum.
The fact that you are enforcing this now, and not the 100s of other times across his posts over the months that this discussion happens just like this, is pathetic Dom.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
I like how the justification for making it even more like an actual witch hunt was simply "we're convicting less people of rape, obviously something's wrong with the courts".
Like the idea of rape being actually down isn't something that even needs considering.
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
Can you just call everyone an incel for me? I was close to finishing the bingo card.
Prosecutor reviewing evidence, text messages saying :
Police complaint :
Sex itself isn't a crime. Castrating someone is.
Of course it's in the realm of possibility that she changed her mind before dinner and he actualy forcefully shoved meatballs in her mouth. It's also possible she lied because the meatballs weren't up to her expectations, or she regreted cheating on her diet, or felt shame about eating meatballs as she has Vegan friends, etc.
And extremely unlikely such a case would be entertained by a judge with circumstancial evidence, the texts messages, showing there was intent for consensual dinner.
Rape is a crime. Sexting is not consent. Sex without consent is rape.
It absolutely is indeed in the realm of possibility that she is willing to flirt electronically but has no intention of getting sticky. Which is all that this guidance points out.
I'm confused that it's causing such distress.
I can answer that. You're so incredibly dishonest about everything you do that you genuinely are covering up the blindingly obvious motive behind this decision.
Go to hell, and take your "Coercive Control" laws with you, you horrid Nazi pieces of shit.
Comment Removed: Rule 16
this is supposed to be a censorship free forum. You're exactly why we started visiting .win
I think I'm being reasonable.
I find it rather suspicious that you only now within the last week started enforcing these rules (which at first glance, makes it look like you made it up on the spot) when he and several other posters have posts just like this going back many many months no issue, because it was part of a wider discussion that frankly needs to be had. If we aren't allowed to talk about it because the subject has a pussy, what was the point of making a KIA2 Win in the first place if you enforce reddit's bullshit regardless?
Reddit jannies can quit Reddit, but not the Reddit attitude.
Remember when AOV decided to deepthroat the halfkia mods and chose to sacrifice the new place to his delusions of coming together by forcibly outsourcing any discussion on modding, leadership etc. to kiameta? Remember when Dom decided that pointing out the skin color of a perpetrator was doubleplusungood when it was a black on white crime?
Remember when the writing was on the wall for literal MONTHS and they wasted like two months stroking eachother off instead of just creating kia.win only to have it "snatched away at the last moment" by the faggots over on halfkia and we were once again forced to play number 2?
These people can't help themself. They just HAVE to be worthless little sandpit tyrants.
I made up all the rules on the spot months ago. If you think I didn't enforce them, it's likely because I missed them.
The issue is not about the subject about you having a problem with women. The issue is about declaring an entire gender to be your enemy. You'll notice I haven't done anything about 'should women be allowed to vote'. That's still an ideological frame work to go off of.
Women as an enemy demographic conspiring to murder all men is pretty fucking bonkers. There has to be a line somewhere for the sake of basic decorum.
The fact that you are enforcing this now, and not the 100s of other times across his posts over the months that this discussion happens just like this, is pathetic Dom.
Absolute failure.
I feel like I've been consistent, but it's entirely possible I missed things.
Fuck off jannie
Lots of stuff, why?