According to him he was. And according to the evidence presented that I've heard. There is nothing pointing to guilt here except her words, sometimes, because sometimes she says it was consensual.Originally Posted by sangha
According to him he was. And according to the evidence presented that I've heard. There is nothing pointing to guilt here except her words, sometimes, because sometimes she says it was consensual.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
This guy wasn't "convicted" of anything.
A private business decided that they didn't want him as a customer.
On the one hand conservatives and FOX News argue that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone they want (as long as that "anyone" is gay), yet on the other hand they argue that business should be required to provide service to anyone who wants it.
Do you even double-standard, bro?
His lawsuit is frivolous and stupid:
Destroy whose reputation?The suit seeks $75,000 and names the school, President Carolyn Martin and several officials for moving “with enormous speed to expel John Doe, eject him from the campus, and destroy his reputation.”
Oh, right, John Doe's.
Yeah, I won't be doing any business with that "John Doe" any time in the near future, I tell you!
dude needs to quit being a crybaby looking for an easy payday, take his transcripts to some other university somewhere, finish his degree, and move on with his life.
Yeah, I know, sometimes the world isn't "fair".
Boo, hoo.
Suck it up and quit being such a pansy.
“Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”
You're right. In this case, there is an accusation of discrimination.
There is other evidence (ex he admits to having sex and being drunk)
IOW, it's wrong for the school to believe the accuser based only on her accusation, but it's OK for you to believe the accussed based only on his accusation
His words, And her words. And in the fact that no evidence of wrong doing took place.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
If drinking and or sex is grounds for expulsion, colleges are going to have a hell of a time keeping classrooms full.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
But you dismiss accusations when it comes from the female and accept them when they come from the male
And there is evidence of wrong doing taking place.
Is that supposed to be our response to allegations of racism? Boo hoo and suck it up?This guy wasn't "convicted" of anything.
A private business decided that they didn't want him as a customer.
On the one hand conservatives and FOX News argue that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone they want (as long as that "anyone" is gay), yet on the other hand they argue that business should be required to provide service to anyone who wants it.
Do you even double-standard, bro?
His lawsuit is frivolous and stupid:
Destroy whose reputation?
Oh, right, John Doe's.
Yeah, I won't be doing any business with that "John Doe" any time in the near future, I tell you!
dude needs to quit being a crybaby looking for an easy payday, take his transcripts to some other university somewhere, finish his degree, and move on with his life.
Yeah, I know, sometimes the world isn't "fair".
Boo, hoo.
Suck it up and quit being such a pansy.
“Most people do not listen with the intent to understand; they listen with the intent to reply.”
― Stephen R. Covey
Even in a criminal trial, an admission that the accused had blacked out and had sex with the accuser would be considered evidence (but not proof) that a crime had been committed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote