This discussion isn't a legal process. By only questioning the victim's statements and the validity of the complaints, I would say you have chosen a side.
I always wonder why a poster would try to decide what I side I have taken when I clearly stated that I'm not about taking sides but seeing where the evidence leaves as to when and if I make a decision but maybe you know me better than I do?
You are right, the rest of us are lacking in critical thinking and ignoring the facts by believing the victim.
Yes by ignoring facts that is a lack of critical thinking application, as to the reason why that's your assertion not mine.
There is not really a coherent thought here, but I'll try - you are saying HC made the settlement to avoid a public shitstorm, and for political reasons? Can you just confirm that?
I'll make it more clear, HC in part settled the claim, like most organizations would, likely in part to avoid the media shitstorm that they now have.
The government panel is more fervently looking into this perhaps in part to avoid media attention elsewhere which is a fairly easy observation as I'm a student of politics and have followed politics very closely for over 40 years.
Government and especially political institutions can want the truth, fairness, justice you name it, and other things at the same time.
That is not what you are doing. You are labelling people as "internet justice mobs" because they read the victim's complaint and have decided to support her, and support a more thorough investigation into what happened.
No I'm calling a duck a duck, when people are making lists and calling people rapists ect those actions are from a mob mentality and when process and nuance is pointed out mob mentality answers are given.
i.e the certain poster who refers to "you guys" and "rapist apologists" which is just plain nonsensical to be polite about it.
You've decided that everyone who believes her is part of this "internet justice mob", and from this last post, you seem to also believe that you alone have the critical thinking skills to make any kind of personal opinion on the matter.
Once again you said reframe from speculating on what others think and perhaps spend more time reading posts and listening to what they are saying instead of making your own narrative about the posters.
So essentially you are lumping all of us in with a few people who are overzealous?
No I'm calling the overzealous overzealous by what they post and for overlooking us concluding facts without much basis.
This is a cowardly tactic taken straight from the world of politics.
No as I actually am not doing the "lumping all of us with a few people thing" so your point is moot.
Thank you for posting this. When I think back on where this discussion thread started (you calling people you disagree with the "internet justice mob" or something along those line), I can't help but chuckle at the absuridtiy of the above quote.
I'm glad that your moral judgment is selective and not all encompassing.
Sadly (unless you have posted again and I haven't seen it) there was no response to actually making real changes to not have incidents like this happen again.
That was one of my earliest posts in this thread about the overall problem and why we should try to make attempts to actually fix it instead of playing armchair police judge and jury here.
But maybe I'm being too much of a dreamer here as another poster is still more interested in scoring points when I asked them directly about what they would do to bring about positive changes.
