they’re the ones paying Rojo for this little safe space to hate. the incel, alt right, social politics stuff generates much more traffic distance running.
it’s probably paying for the content on the front page.
Of course it does. For as much as it is embarrassing and a total disaster that a reasonable person would never want to be associated with, the far more egregious thing about it is the disingenuous, bad-faith idiocy that the BroJos roll out to defend it.
"Oh, it's just what runners talk about on their runs!"
Like, how stupid would you need to be to actually buy that? It makes them money, more than running, and beyond that, they're both immature, unfunny trust-fund nepo-baby trolls who at best merely tolerate the bottom-scraping dregs that this forum vomits up with but more often than that agree -- which of course just creates more page views as anyone with sensible mind dives in to mock them relentlessly.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
Testimony counts as evidence, and there were witnesses in terms of verifying the victims' account. At a party of Scientologists, one victim came downstairs after going upstairs to take a nap and said he’d raped her. So people didn't see the rape but they saw the person right after. There is paperwork of one of the victims reporting it to the church and them advising her not to report it to the police. She did anyway. There are 5 women who have accused him of rape and he was convicted for 2 rapes, 15 years each. They're not just taking someone at their word—there's lots of other testimony and supporting evidence. You think in a jury that doesn't believe his ex-gf, there's not going to be one dude or woman who's like, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE.
Can you source these claims you make? I find none of this in the media.
Did you read Jane Doe's testimony from the trial pasted earlier?
It's hilariously pathetic that your only clearing house for whether valid evidence was presented is "the media", a nebulous, impossible-to-suffice position in which you can forever move the goalposts.
"I'm not seeing it in the places I'm looking."
"I'm not seeing it in the places you showed me, after I asked you to do the work to find it."
"That [evidence/publication/etc] isn't credible -- why wasn't it in [alternative]? Why is there an inconsistency?"
And on and on and on. You're not being serious -- or you are and as such you're the biggest tack-ass incel loser to walk this Earth -- but I'm not going to let you off the hook for such an obvious low-effort fallacious position just because it's obvious.
Either way, this is you: you defend rape on a running message board. You should be real proud.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Carolyn Bryant Donham is quoted in a new book as admitting her long-ago allegations that Emmett grabbed her and was menacing and sexually crude toward her, “is not true.”
Asking for evidence of guilt is not supporting rapists. This trial had no accusations of child molestation. Asking why people like Steve Wynn have not been prosecuted is not whataboutery.
Asking for evidence of guilt is not supporting rapists. This trial had no accusations of child molestation. Asking why people like Steve Wynn have not been prosecuted is not whataboutery.
You're asking on a place where people are unlikely to know what evidence was or wasn't presented and even less likely to care enough to dig it up for you.
Let's say that I want evidence that SGLT-2 inhibitors decrease mortality among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Would you suggest that I a) discuss the matter with cardiologists and read about it in cardiology journals, or b) ask about it on a message board that has nothing to do with medicine or cardiology and read a few popular press articles, and then declare that SGLT-2 inhibitors must be useless because my lazy-ass search for answers revealed no convincing evidence? The latter is basically what you're doing.
Asking for evidence is fine. We're not the people to ask and this isn't the place to look.
Asking for evidence of guilt is not supporting rapists. This trial had no accusations of child molestation. Asking why people like Steve Wynn have not been prosecuted is not whataboutery.
You're asking on a place where people are unlikely to know what evidence was or wasn't presented and even less likely to care enough to dig it up for you.
Let's say that I want evidence that SGLT-2 inhibitors decrease mortality among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Would you suggest that I a) discuss the matter with cardiologists and read about it in cardiology journals, or b) ask about it on a message board that has nothing to do with medicine or cardiology and read a few popular press articles, and then declare that SGLT-2 inhibitors must be useless because my lazy-ass search for answers revealed no convincing evidence? The latter is basically what you're doing.
Asking for evidence is fine. We're not the people to ask and this isn't the place to look.
No, that’s a poor analogy weirdly conflating media and scientific research. Media is widely reporting on a grievous sentence of life imprisonment handed out to a man, so it is natural for people of the land to expect media to report on the evidence beyond accusations, if any, or understandably wonder how just words could do someone in forever.
This is the fourth in a series of articles on the case of The People vs. Daniel Masterson in which Masterson is charged with sexual assaulting three women in 2001 and 2003. You can find links to all of Crime Story’s coverage...
Probably none according to people like Newname. Newname believes that there is no such thing as rape and that it should be decriminalized.
People like Newname believe that evidence should be required to convict someone and sentence them to 30 years of prison. Eye witness evidence is fine if it can be corroborated. The fact that he could be found guilty and sentenced to rape is extremely concerning and a complete miscarriage of just.
Is he actually guilty? Nobody knows...because nobody other than the alleged victims were there. Why should anyone believe the victims words over his?
Probably none according to people like Newname. Newname believes that there is no such thing as rape and that it should be decriminalized.
People like Newname believe that evidence should be required to convict someone and sentence them to 30 years of prison. Eye witness evidence is fine if it can be corroborated. The fact that he could be found guilty and sentenced to rape is extremely concerning and a complete miscarriage of just.
Is he actually guilty? Nobody knows...because nobody other than the alleged victims were there. Why should anyone believe the victims words over his?
So the standard for a rape conviction has to include eyewitnesses? The courts have held that a victim sharing around the time of the incident to be admissible. The people in the courtroom heard the actual testimony none of us have. Transcripts have limited value here in determining credibility.
I listen to a law podcast and one the of the hosts gives reminders from time to time that we rarely hear the full testimony and hear it given by the person but the jury does. I will defer to the people in the room unless there is compelling reason not to do so.
People like Newname believe that evidence should be required to convict someone and sentence them to 30 years of prison. Eye witness evidence is fine if it can be corroborated. The fact that he could be found guilty and sentenced to rape is extremely concerning and a complete miscarriage of just.
Is he actually guilty? Nobody knows...because nobody other than the alleged victims were there. Why should anyone believe the victims words over his?
So the standard for a rape conviction has to include eyewitnesses? The courts have held that a victim sharing around the time of the incident to be admissible. The people in the courtroom heard the actual testimony none of us have. Transcripts have limited value here in determining credibility.
I listen to a law podcast and one the of the hosts gives reminders from time to time that we rarely hear the full testimony and hear it given by the person but the jury does. I will defer to the people in the room unless there is compelling reason not to do so.
Nah, clearly there's a conspiracy within the deep state making sure that Danny Masterton isn't a free man. He was going to blow the lid off of the Rand Corporation and the Soros-backed elites shut it down. Or something.
It's amazing how much of these loser, chuckledick incel clowns will talk about how great America is -- and how if you don't like it, you can leave -- but are getting their ill-fitting, piss-stained underwear in a tizzy after the legal system worked exactly how it was supposed to. I assume it's because by default America in their conception is supposed to work for powerful white men at the preference above everyone else, not put one away.
This post was edited 32 seconds after it was posted.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
