No. I am a victim of several sexual assaults — AmadeusD

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to my comment about lawyers. It is not clear what "they do" refers to. You misquote me. What I said is "they do not ... "

If you have an issue with this ... — AmadeusD

I don't. The point is that it is a major reason why many victims just keep quiet.

Your biases are writ large, and its clear your have a pre-determined view on the matter. — AmadeusD

It is not a pre-determined view. It is a view based on his own words, the allegations against him, his lies, his numerous court cases, and the strategy he learned from Roy Cohn - deny, deny, deny.

It doesn't seem to matter to you that we have systems in place to adjudicate conflicting accounts of things. — AmadeusD

These women made allegations. He denied each and every one of them as he does any accusation against him. That is as far as all but one of these cases went.

You are also intimating that a recording of a private conversation, in a context that has absolutely nothing to do with carrying out a sexual assault is evidence of one. — AmadeusD

I am not intimating anything. I am saying that grabbing a woman by the pussy without consent is a sexual assault. He claims that this is what he does.

It is several. No it isn't. — AmadeusD

According to the Oxford Languages dictionary, 'several' means:

more than two but not many.

Twenty-seven is many.

I've suggested it does not strain credibility. — AmadeusD

Evidently your threshold is far greater than mine. Is there any number of allegations against him that he denies that would strain his credibility for you?

When you do not know the facts they cannot indicate anything.
— Fooloso4

Ok. So, why are you coming to all manner of absurd conclusions, foregoing democratic judicially processes and assuming everything but God to get to a position like the one you're in? — AmadeusD

Facts are provided in the link. I listed them. The fact that the number of allegations against him are much more than "several". The fact that they did not bring legal charges against him so there was no opportunity to lie in court. The fact that E Jean Carroll brought him to court and won. The fact that none of them except her pursued it any further.

These are the facts you missed or ignored in your attempt to defend him.

What I said is "they do not ... — Fooloso4

Correct. But, in retrospect, my comment makes more sense in this context. Apologies for the mis-quote.

I don't. The point is that it is a major reason why many victims just keep quiet. — Fooloso4

Assuming so is ... bad form. Assuming guilt is bad form. INferring guilt is bad form. Filling gaps with non-existent victims (as far as we currently know, given we're talking about non-reports essentially) is bad form. I don't do that. I wouldn't accept others doing that around me. Perhaps its the legal mind, but I can't allow it (i.e I would push back. Do whatever you want lol).

It is not a pre-determined view. — Fooloso4

Based on the following sentence (in your reply) i'm going to reiterate that it is. We can just leave that, I would think.

That is as far as all but one of these cases went. — Fooloso4

Then we have literally no reason to assume guilt, do we? Nice.

I am saying that grabbing a woman by the pussy without consent is a sexual assault. He claims that this is what he does. — Fooloso4

You will notice that my comments on the initial position apply (perhaps more strongly) to this one. You have nothing.

Twenty-seven is many. — Fooloso4

The context is a section of a group. 27 is several as opposed to 200 (where maybe 75+ would be 'many'). This is a dumb thing to object to anyway. It has nothing to do with the substance.

Is there any number of allegations against him that he denies that would strain his credibility for you? — Fooloso4

No. But I think this is actually the answer you want, you're just not adequate distinguishing the important part: A single provable instance would be enough to write him off in the same way even some of hte lets say less stable detractors have. That's simply not something I can get on with in any way. Accusations don't bother me, that much (particularly ones against a wealthy, older white male (i.e extremely easy target) in the context of his becoming President where half the country already wanted his head). That's a separate conversation, but just stating so it's clear.

If you'd just asked me whether I personally actually think he's sexually assaulted anyone before, I'd have said, oh almost surely. I don't know a single person who hasn't, when drilled. Its a matter of degree. And his 'degree' is likely to be far higher than the ones I'm intimating in the previous sentence. Do I believe he did any of the discreet things he's accused of? I'd be an idiot to go one way or the other.

Facts are provided in the link. I listed them. — Fooloso4

Then, I think we're done. Nothing you've presented provide any basis for your conclusions, in my view. You've doubled down on assumptions, reading words as actions, a pretense of Godly knowledge of character and a knack for inferring facts from non-facts that I'm jealous of. At least one (that other complaints went no further) tell against you. You have to fill in the gaps and assume embarrassing numbers of elements to come to any conclusion. Reiterating the above: I'd be an idiot to believe one way or the other. This is hte correct way to deal with disputed facts when you're not the Judge, God or have direct personal knowledge.

The only aspect you've brought up which has much to say is the E Jean Carroll case which is certainly concerning, and even on terms I've restricted my concerns to. However, I would refer you to the Amber Heard case in London for an example of why this says not much. It just means Trump couldn't win a defamation case. It's word-against-word, and both sides have an extremely vested interest. For several reasons, the Jury was likely disposed (particularly on a lower threshold of evidence in civ cases) to find him guilty. He very well could have raped her. He very well could have done something lesser. He very well may just be a clumsy dick that people are targeting because of his clumsy, lusty behaviour (for the avoidance of doubt, any form of SA is precluded from the description just given).

I have not defended him once. I don't know him. He seems a total goof who I wouldn't enjoy spending time with.
I have pushed back on legally dubious claims and presumptions of guilt. Might be worth focusing a little bit ;)

I have pushed back on legally dubious claims ... — AmadeusD

That is the problem! You are arguing as if this is a legal matter. It's not. There are no legal cases.

I see what you are saying, but no one tends to get explicit consent to kiss a woman: that literally kills the vibe, and women attest this. — Bob Ross

As I hope you know, there is a big difference between:

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss.I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

a

and a situation in which there is a "vibe".

Likewise, he said “they let you do it” and he didn’t say “I can do it anyways”. — Bob Ross

I am quoting from a transcript of the conversation. What does it mean to let you do it when you don't even wait?

Whether or not a farmer is good at farming is relative to what the purpose of farming is — Bob Ross

Xenophon's Oeconomicus is about this. It is not simply about the purpose, it is about the practice and results of the practice.

whatever internal goods exist for chess — Bob Ross

What are the internal good of chess?

relative to the purpose of chess — Bob Ross

What is the purpose of chess? People play for a variety of reasons. I did not play chess with my young children with the purpose of

Is there a point you are trying to make in defining what it means to be good at chess?

It seems we have moved quite far away from supremacy, nationalism, and imperialism.

What does it mean to let you do it when you don't even wait?

I already explained this to you, and you didn’t address it adequately. There is such a thing as implicit consent and, specifically with kissing, it is commonly accepted that you can kiss a woman without explicitly asking if it’s ok first—it depends, rather, on the circumstances.

By Trump saying “I don’t even wait”, I don’t think he is saying that he BlitzKriegs them so that they don’t have time to say no or gesture him to stay away. All he is saying in that tape, is that women will let you do things to them if you are famous; which is generally very true.

It is not simply about the purpose, it is about the practice and results of the practice.

The practice is relative to a purpose or purposes. My point is that, as generally understood, there is such a thing, in principle, as a good or bad farmer. Nothing you have said has negated this; instead you are sidestepping it by trying to debate what exactly the practice of farming entails.

What are the internal good of chess?

The internal goods are anything that can be acquired that is good relative to what chess is designed for. These are things like competitive skill, strategic imagination, competitive intensity, winning (fairly), etc.

An external good would be like if a person were trying to win chess just for the sake of winning the prize that comes with it.

What is the purpose of chess?

To play a fair, strategic match according to certain rules to determine a winner. That’s the Telos of chess; although people can certainly have other reasons and purposes for doing it. A person who plays chess may not be a chess player in the strict sense of that word; because they may not be playing chess for those internal goods—it may be, e.g., to get revenge on their ex who is really good at chess by beating them.

Is there a point you are trying to make in defining what it means to be good at chess?

That internal goods are objective goods relative to the Telos of the thing in question—there are objective goods to chess. This doesn’t, prima facie, entail that they are morally relevant; but I am building up to that here.

It seems we have moved quite far away from supremacy, nationalism, and imperialism.

It definitely seems like it, but it is important to understand that my view presupposes an aristotelian form of moral realism; and so if you don’t see that then we can’t make much progress—especially if you are not a moral realist yourself at all...

If over 90% of the people belonged to the same church, why not?

Because the church should have no influence on the state: that usually leads to corruption, persecution, and disaster.

Right to bear arms is in many countries. It really doesn't have to be in the constitution.

Oh, do you mean like a state right? How are they codifying that into law there?

Hey, nobody hasn't used the Hitler card yet. Or have they???

That proponent of a mixture of nationalism and socialism has to appear sometime.

Surprisingly no, they have not yet...everyone’s been hammering Trump. My answer is simple: I don’t promote socialism at all nor authoritarianism (to that degree). By nationalism, I just mean it in the sense as noted in the OP; which I don’t think aligns with Hitler’s version.

I am not sure if I responded to this already, but here we go (again, if applicable).

I'm saying there is no objective badness, and you're turning that into actual badness... as matter of definition it seems.

Yes, that is incoherent to say that something is actually good, but isn’t objectively good.

What is considered good or bad farming is subjective, in that you do have different ways of farming that have different values in mind

No, no. A moral judgment is expressing something objective if its truth is independent of non-objective dispositions; and whether or not someone is good at some form of farming, chess, playing basketball, etc. is objective. E.g., it is not relative to anyone’s beliefs or desires that Lebron is a good basketball player—and, in principle, it couldn’t be the case.

You are confusing moral relativism with moral non-objectivism (such as moral subjectivism).

There is such a thing as implicit consent and, specifically with kissing, it is commonly accepted that you can kiss a woman without explicitly asking if it’s ok first—it depends, rather, on the circumstances. — Bob Ross

These is such a thing, but that does not mean that when Trump just starts kissing women there is implicit consent. It does depend on the circumstances.Once again:

there is a big difference between:
— Fooloso4

I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss.I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

and a situation in which there is a "vibe".

We are talking about what Trump brags he had done, not what might happen between other people in other circumstances.

All he is saying in that tape, is that women will let you do things to them if you are famous; which is generally very true. — Bob Ross

To just assume that women will let him do anything because he is a star is a rapist mentality. Some women might assent but many will not. I will stop there for a moment hoping this might sink in. It is the problem of the "casting couch". Some women might let him because they think it might advance their career, but others because they are coerced and worried about what will happen if they don't.

Grabbing someone and not waiting does not leave time to judge whether they welcome the advance or give them a choice in the matter. In the E Jean Carroll case she did not "let him" do things, she resisted, but he did them anyway.

The practice is relative to a purpose or purposes. — Bob Ross

Good practice involves more that just the purpose construed narrowly. It is not simply a matter of the production of crops. To be good practice it must be sustainable. It must limit the negative environmental consequences. Phosphates produce larger yields but are harmful to streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes.

there is such a thing, in principle, as a good or bad farmer. — Bob Ross

Of course, but in practice as well as principle. What makes a good farmer is what she does in practice not principle.

instead you are sidestepping it by trying to debate what exactly the practice of farming entails. — Bob Ross

I am not sidestepping it. I have not denied that there is a difference between a good and bad farmer. It is, however, vacuous. The question of what it means to be a good farmer must address the practice of farming.

What is the purpose of chess?

To play a fair, strategic match according to certain rules to determine a winner. — Bob Ross

To play fair and by the rules is not the purpose of playing the game, it is a requirement. Determining a winner may be secondary to other things. If you are a competent player determining whether you will win again the average 5 year old should be evident without even playing.

Perhaps in your case I am wrong. Perhaps you would play with the purpose of beating them. Perhaps the same holds for other games as well - to win against them. And in line with the topic of this thread, to assert and demonstrate supremacy.

As an Aristotelian, I would say that there are objective, internal goods to things when those things have a Telos. E.g., a good farmer, a bad chess player, a good watch, a bad human, etc. — Bob Ross

I'm not sure what you mean with a Telos or internal good, because we invented farming, chess and clocks. These concept did not exist until we invented them... so how does one make sense of them having an internal good aside from the subjective values and goals we had in mind when devising them. I mean sure, good farming practices for instance will also be informed by objective things in the world, by how plants grow, or how weather fluctuates between seasons, but what it ultimately depends on is on what we decided farming should do for us (i.e. producing food, without to much work, in sustainable ways maybe etc etc).

No, no. A moral judgment is expressing something objective if its truth is independent of non-objective dispositions; and whether or not someone is good at some form of farming, chess, playing basketball, etc. is objective. E.g., it is not relative to anyone’s beliefs or desires that Lebron is a good basketball player—and, in principle, it couldn’t be the case. — Bob Ross

I don't disagree that Lebron is objectively a good basketball player, I'm saying that we have decided what constitutes a good basketballplayer collectively (or intersubjectively)... and then we can go comparing a specific player like Lebron to that conventional standard, and conclude on the basis of objective facts that he is indeed objectively a good player.

These is such a thing

I am glad we found common ground on that part of the point; and I agree that granting that there is such a thing as implicit consent does not entail itself that Trump is properly “acquiring” it.

The difference between us is that you think that the tape, which you keep re-quoting, demonstrates a confession out of Trump’s own mouth to kissing women without any kind of consent; and I am not seeing how. What do you think of the part that says “they let you do it”? It seems like, to me, that you are ignoring that part to fit the tape to your narrative—but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

To just assume that women will let him do anything because he is a star is a rapist mentality

I didn’t say nor imply that; and I completely agree if someone were to think that they can do whatever they want simply because they are a star that they have a sex offender mentality. However, Trump didn’t say in that tape that he was just assuming women will let him do it when he does it: he said, and I cannot stress this enough, that “they let you do it”. He was noting that there are perks to being famous, and one is that women are more incentivized to do sexual things with you; and I think we can both agree that that is true. I mean De Caprio still pulls women in their early 20s: same idea.

Some women might let him because they think it might advance their career

That’s consensual, in this case. I cannot stand it when women let a man do something to her as a means towards her own end and then when it doesn’t work out in their favor they cry wolf. Can we agree on that?

but others because they are coerced and worried about what will happen if they don't.

I agree here: this is a form of sexual abuse. 100%.

Grabbing someone and not waiting does not leave time to judge whether they welcome the advance or give them a choice in the matter.

Yes, I concede that he said that he doesn’t even wait; but he also said that they let him do it. So, contextually, the best interpretation is that he means that he doesn’t ask or obnoxiously slowly come onto them for the kiss.

For example, I could see someone saying:

“Yeah, Hannah and I had a great time yesterday. We went on a nice date, and she let me kiss her. I didn’t even have to ask: I didn’t have to wait. She just let me kiss her. It was amazing”.

Do you see what I mean?

In the E Jean Carroll case she did not "let him" do things, she resisted, but he did them anyway.

Yes, she tried to hold him civilly liable for rape and the Jury agreed but only with respect to the common use of the term—so he wasn’t held liable. My problem is that she had no concrete evidence, and waited conveniently until he was very popular in office to do it; and then made a ton of money off of her book about it.

Good practice involves more that just the purpose construed narrowly. It is not simply a matter of the production of crops. To be good practice it must be sustainable. It must limit the negative environmental consequences. Phosphates produce larger yields but are harmful to streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes.

A well designed system is full of smaller systems with their own internal goods that contribute to greater internal goods—e.g., the human body, a society, etc.

Of course, but in practice as well as principle. What makes a good farmer is what she does in practice not principle.

So we agree, then, that there is such a thing as actual goodness—i.e., objective goodness? That was my point.

The difference between us is that you think that the tape, which you keep re-quoting, demonstrates a confession out of Trump’s own mouth to kissing women without any kind of consent; and I am not seeing how. — Bob Ross

You asked for a link. I provided one but apparently you did not read it. The tape is only one part of a larger picture. There are 27 women over a period of thirty years who made allegations against him. There was in those cases no consent involved.

What do you think of the part that says “they let you do it”? — Bob Ross

I think it means that at least in some of the cases the do not resist. There are different reasons why. It should not be taken as consent simply because someone does not fight. If you are really interested do some research on what victims of molestation say.

What do you think of the part that says “they let you do it”? It seems like, to me, that you are ignoring that part — Bob Ross

I am not. I said that Trump's assumption. All you have is his side of the story.

Can we agree on that? — Bob Ross

Yes. But what might hold for one case does not have for all cases or even most cases. Even if it is true in some cases it is not in others. Because it is not true in those cases it is molestation.

“Yeah, Hannah and I had a great time yesterday. We went on a nice date, and she let me kiss her. I didn’t even have to ask: I didn’t have to wait. She just let me kiss her. It was amazing”. — Bob Ross

He says nothing about going on a nice date. From the transcript:

Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her.

I don't think her name is "with the gold". That is nothing like a dating situation. It is predatory behavior.

My problem is that she had no concrete evidence, — Bob Ross

What concrete evidence might she have? He attacked her in a department store dressing room.

Some degree of public recognition is not licence to molest someone. Spin this any way you want, but his being "a star" does not confer privilege or make all or most women weak in the knee because it is Donald Trump.

I don''t think there is any good reason to pursue this further. If you regard his action as permissible and imagine that women welcome his advances, there is nothing more I can say to that will make you see just how wrong it is.

I'm not sure what you mean with a Telos or internal good

I am talking about the fact that things that have design have goods which are intrinsic to that design (e.g., a good clock is a clock that can tell the time properly and a bad clock is a clock that can tell the time poorly): this isn’t relative to a subject’s belief about it—so it isn’t “subjective”.

It’s no different than:

I don't disagree that Lebron is objectively a good basketball player

Then you agree that there is such a thing as objective goodness; because you just agreed Lebron is objectively a good basketball player.

The problem you are noting is that we invented basketball, but this doesn’t make the internal goods to basketball subjective—that’s the key you are missing. These internal goods are relative to the design, irregardless if that design was imbued by a subject or subjects.

If it were subjectively the case that Lebron is a good basketball player, then I would be equally right to say right now that he is a terrible basketball and you wouldn’t be able to say I am wrong—because no one is actually right or wrong about it.

I provided one but apparently you did not read it.

I did, and, again, women merely claiming be to sexually abused is not sufficient evidence to support that the alleged man did it. That’s poor reasoning, and opens up for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit by evil women.

I don't think her name is "with the gold".

All you are noting here is that he speaks demeaning about women—that’s not a sex crime.

It is predatory behavior.

Perhaps, I could see that in the looser sense of ~”trying to go out and have sex with as many attractive women as possible”. There’s tons of men out there that are f*boys that speak in an overly sexualized way about women—that’s not a sex crime.

What concrete evidence might she have? He attacked her in a department store dressing room.

Yes, and unfortunately, this is the real challenge for sex crime victims: there word cannot be enough to convict someone, but the nature of the crime usually means there’s no further evidence. I am not sure how to help solve this issue, but I do know it isn’t to lower our standards for evidence.

I don''t think there is any good reason to pursue this further.

No problem. I am always here if you want to keep discussing this.

If you regard his action as permissible and imagine that women welcome his advances, there is nothing more I can say to that will make you see just how wrong it is.

I don’t think it is morally permissible; but it is legally permissible. A sex crime happens when you unconsentually do something sexual to a woman, and nothing about his tape nor the other claims of the other women gave sufficient evidence that he did anything illegal. He was speaking about women in an immoral way, but wasn’t confessing to anything illegal.

The problem you are noting is that we invented basketball, but this doesn’t make the internal goods to basketball subjective—that’s the key you are missing. These internal goods are relative to the design, irregardless if that design was imbued by a subject or subjects.

If it were subjectively the case that Lebron is a good basketball player, then I would be equally right to say right now that he is a terrible basketball and you wouldn’t be able to say I am wrong—because no one is actually right or wrong about it. — Bob Ross

I agree with all of this, never disagreed about this really.... but that is I think besides the point for the OP.

The point is that different societies have invented different designs, to use your terminology here. It isn't "subjective" what is right or wrong, because it objectively follows from the design, indeed. But what is right or wrong will differ from society to society because they have invented different designs. Maybe it's a bit like american football and soccer (i.e. real football), there is a different design, so a good football player will be something different depending on what design we are talking about.

That is why I argue that it isn't these 'in-group' moral standards that should be used to determine how one acts geopolitically, because they are particular to a certain society, but instead the standards that follow from what is agreed upon in the "internalional community" or in diplomatic dialogue between states.

I'm not sure this will come across because I have been restating basically the same point since the beginning.

...women merely claiming be to sexually abused is not sufficient evidence to support that the alleged man did it. — Bob Ross

In such cases the only evidence is the word of the victim. Whenever accused of anything Trump plays the victim. Why, in case after case, do you take his word against women who have nothing to gain by making known what they say has happened to them?

That’s poor reasoning, and opens up for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit by evil women. — Bob Ross

What is poor reasoning is jumping from the allegations of these women to a situation where someone like Trump is portrayed as an innocent man convicted of crimes by evil women. It is for this reason that only a fraction of cases are even reported.

What is the reasoning behind the assumption that in case after case after case we should take Trump's word over that of the women?

All you are noting here is that he speaks demeaning about women—that’s not a sex crime. — Bob Ross

All I am noting is that he does not even seem to know her name. This is far different than the romantic date scenario you provide.

There’s tons of men out there that are f*boys that speak in an overly sexualized way about women—that’s not a sex crime. — Bob Ross

When they act on it over and over again with women who have given no indication that they welcome the advance that is a sex crime.

Yes, and unfortunately, this is the real challenge for sex crime victims — Bob Ross

No. The real challenge is that they will become the target of just the kind of "reasoning" you provide, where without any evidence they are treated as the evil woman.

I don’t think it is morally permissible; but it is legally permissible. — Bob Ross

It is not legally permissible! Lacking sufficient evidence to prove that a crime occurred does not mean that no crime was committed..

If your point would be that human beings have a certain telos (or design), and therefor morally (the way humans should act) is objective, I would disagree with that for a specific reason.

Evolution did not design human beings like we design basketball. But maybe you could say that biological lifeforms do have evolved a kind of telos. The point I would make is that while that is true generally for most life, humans are a special case because part of our telos as eu-social language using beings, is to develop culture. Because culture is not something that is set in stone, but changes over time and from place to place, there is an inherently indeterminate element in our telos… an element that I would argue gets filled in with the intersubjective.

Edit: The term intersubjective is maybe not entirely the correct term for it. It's more something akin to cultural materialism, where the intersubjective/cultural is also in part determined by the specific material circumstances a group finds itself in.

There are no legal cases. — Fooloso4

Then your biases seem a little larger. Though, I acknowledged earlier, and do so now as a bit of a olivebranch that I am biased in the other direction, having been a victim and having been falsely accused. Fair positions; both, i'd think, if we're not talking legal benchmarks. Though, it seemed you were..

It isn't "subjective" what is right or wrong, because it objectively follows from the design, indeed.

So we haven’t explored this far yet, because you denied moral realism. Now that I got you on board with the idea of objective goodness, we have to understand what morality is about in this view: right and wrong behavior. An analysis of behavior, subsequently, is an analysis of the mind—specifically those which have sufficiently free and rational capacities (called persons). What is morally objectively good, then, is the behaviors (and habits) which are in alignment with being an excellent person; and this is relative to the Telos, design, of persons. The virtues for persons, are any excellences of character—i.e., habits of character which allow a person to properly size up to being a person.

The virtues, to put it simply, are the traditional virtues—e.g., justice, liberality, open-mindness, being morally conscientious, courageousness, etc.

Anything developed or created by a person, must be done in an moral way; and this is to say that it must be done in a virtuous and morally permissible way; which is just to say, in a nutshell, that, e.g., any human society that does not promote properly those internal goods to being a person and, more specifically, a human being—although you are right to note that such a society would have objective, internal goods—would be immoral for humans to participate in.

Why, in case after case, do you take his word against women who have nothing to gain by making known what they say has happened to them?
…
What is the reasoning behind the assumption that in case after case after case we should take Trump's word over that of the women?

I don’t take his word for it: I do not convict him because there is a fundamental and important principle called “innocent until proven guilty”.

Believing the accuser without any evidence is always wrong; because it does not establish the necessary evidence to support what the accused was accused of.

All I am noting is that he does not even seem to know her name. This is far different than the romantic date scenario you provide.

It was an analogy to point out that saying “I didn’t even have to wait” does not entail itself a confession of sexual assault.

The real challenge is that they will become the target of just the kind of "reasoning" you provide, where without any evidence they are treated as the evil woman.

I never said we should treat women that accuse men of sexual crimes, who do not have sufficient evidence to prove it, as “evil women”.

but I do know it isn’t to lower our standards for evidence. — Bob Ross

Even accepting an opinion that its more likely than not Trump, or whoever, committed these crimes, this is true and an inarguably important aspect of a fair judicial system. The opposite risk is so much worse. This is why the 'believe all women' campaign probably resulted in a reduction in women being taken seriously. Coupled with lower thresholds for psychological resilience (i.e, some guy brushed against me in a mosh pit, so I was assaulted is utterly insane, but not uncommon, where women are constantly being told they're at risks that they probably aren't actually at, at most times).

I note, also, that at least here and the UK, Judges are extremely live to this issue and very commonly will convict a man on "convincing hearsay" and thin probative evidence. I.e, nothing actually establishes the thing occurred, let a lone that guy did it - but judges do not want to leave a total gap for the reason Bob noted:

the real challenge for sex crime victims: there word cannot be enough to convict someone, but the nature of the crime usually means there’s no further evidence. — Bob Ross

No idea how to 'get around' this. But hte situation where 'innocent until proven guilty' is airtight, is clearly better than convicting people on vibes. Having been a victim, I'm rather comfortable telling anyone who thinks otherwise to simply shut up. Just shut up.

Evolution did not design human beings like we design basketball

Correct; but there is still design in it—but it is a different type of teleology (which I call ‘weak teleology’).

That my eye is a product of evolution, does not entail that it is not designed to see in a particular way. You would have to say, e.g., that human beings are not supposed to to have two arms. It makes no sense.

If you don’t like the term ‘design’, then use the term ‘function’: it portrays the same underlying meaning here.

a fundamental and important principle called “innocent until proven guilty”. — Bob s

That is a legal principle. As a non legal standard, if one or two people accuse someone of something then it might be reasonable to not reach a conclusion, but as the number of accusations rise in unrelated cases where the accusers who do not know of the other accusations, it would be stupid to continue to assume that they did nothing wrong.

Believing the accuser without any evidence is always wrong; because it does not establish the necessary evidence to support what the accused was accused of. — Bob Ross

So if a large number of people make accusations in cases where the only evidence is the word of the person on each side, it is always wrong to believe the accused and not believe the many accusers?

It was an analogy to point out that saying “I didn’t even have to wait” does not entail itself a confession of sexual assault. — Bob Ross

Analogies made in cases that are not analogous are at best misleading and at worse deceptive.

I never said we should treat women that accuse men of sexual crimes, who do not have sufficient evidence to prove it, as “evil women”. — Bob Ross

What you said is:

That’s poor reasoning, and opens up for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit by evil women. — Bob Ross

You assume the man is innocent, and so a woman who accuses him is assumed to be evil unless she can prove he did it. But in a great many cases there are no witnesses and no evidence. It is his word against her's and her's and her's, but they can't be believed because they are all evil.

That is a legal principle. As a non legal standard, if one or two people accuse someone of something then it might be reasonable to not reach a conclusion, but as the number of accusations rise in unrelated cases where the accusers who do not know of the other accusations, it would be stupid to continue to assume that they did nothing wrong.

As a practical matter, yes, ceteris paribus, we would say that this person is probably a sexual predator if there are multiple, unrelated accounts. But it does matter if those accounts are not completely unrelated (such as deciding to come out once they realize other people are making such accusations) and to whom is accused (such as a very wealthy person). Likewise, it matters what evidence was presented and by whom (e.g., if my sister makes the claim, then I am much, much more inclined, prima facie, to believe it because I know her character).

So if a large number of people make accusations in cases where the only evidence is the word of the person on each side, it is always wrong to believe the accused and not believe the many accusers?

I would take a look at the evidence, who is making the claim, and who it is being claimed about. If I don’t think that there’s enough evidence, the person is of bad or questionable character, or there are reasonable reasons for someone of bad intention to make false claims about the accused, or something similar, then I would not believe them.

Analogies made in cases that are not analogous are at best misleading and at worse deceptive.

An analogy is a similarity in dissimilar events: that’s how it works. The analogous aspect was that the phrase “I didn’t even have to wait” does not itself indicate a sex crime was committed. Do you agree or not?

You assume the man is innocent, and so a woman who accuses him is assumed to be evil unless she can prove he did it

Please re-read what you quoted here:

I never said we should treat women that accuse men of sexual crimes, who do not have sufficient evidence to prove it, as “evil women”.
…
That’s poor reasoning, and opens up for innocent men to be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit by evil women.

I stand by my statement, and you are misunderstanding. The second quote is explaining why we assume innocence, under the law, until proven guilty; the first quote is noting that a women who cannot prove sufficiently that the crime occurred is not in principle evil. It is entirely possible for a good women who was sexually abused to not have sufficient evidence to prove it, and that we would then assume, under the law, that that man is innocent—so your claim here is a false dichotomy.

In practicality, even if a women cannot prove it sufficiently under the law, you are right to note that we may still believe it anyways (and rightly so).

but they can't be believed because they are all evil.

This is a blatant straw man, and hopefully the above provided ample clarification.

... the person is of bad or questionable character, or there are reasonable reasons for someone of bad intention to make false claims about the accused, or something similar, then I would not believe them. — Bob Ross

What do you know of character of those women who have made accusations against him? Why not apply the same standard to them as you do to the accused? I agree that if there is evidence of bad intentions then their claims are weakened, but the possibility of bad intentions does not mean that there are bad intentions.

An analogy is a similarity in dissimilar events: that’s how it works. The analogous aspect was that the phrase “I didn’t even have to wait” does not itself indicate a sex crime was committed. Do you agree or not? — Bob Ross

There is nothing analogous in these situations. Shooting someone because they pose a threat is not analogues to shooting someone for fun even though the same phrase occurs when I say "I shot him".

the first quote is noting that a women who cannot prove sufficiently that the crime occurred is not in principle evil. — Bob Ross

The problem is with the misogynistic idea that "the evil woman" poses a threat to innocent men. There is always the problem of false conviction. It has nothing to do with "evil women", but this is the kind of thing that gets trotted out whenever a woman accuses a man. She is made suspect.

This is a blatant straw man, and hopefully the above provided ample clarification. — Bob Ross

The idea of the evil woman seducing and/or wrongly accusing innocent men is ancient. Whether or not this is what you intended, there it is. It is not simply the problem of false witness, the evil woman comes to play an essential part. The dynamics have been in place since long before us.

What do you know of character of those women who have made accusations against him?

Just as much as I can extrapolate from the circumstances which they brought up the charges, and what they benefited from it (if anything).

Why not apply the same standard to them as you do to the accused?

What you do you mean? I am applying the same principles to both: one is innocent until proven guilty, and there must be sufficient evidence (which demonstrates without a reasonable doubt for legal purposes or more likely than not for civil/practical purposes) that proves them guilty.

I am not saying that they are proven, under the court of law nor civilly, to have evil intentions. I was saying that many aspects of Carrol’s case just provide reasonable doubt and so her case would not hold up in criminal court.

There is nothing analogous in these situations

The point was that the phrase you were using to condemn Trump cannot, in-itself, provide that condemnation.

Shooting someone because they pose a threat is not analogues to shooting someone for fun even though the same phrase occurs when I say "I shot him".

Sure, but it would be a fair analogy to say that “I shot him” does not itself entail murder in the case of shooting someone because it could have been self-defense.

The problem is with the misogynistic idea that "the evil woman" poses a threat to innocent men

Evil people and flaws in the court system pose a threat to innocent people. I don’t know why you are turning this into a sexism thing.

The idea of the evil woman seducing and/or wrongly accusing innocent men is ancient.

Are you saying that idea that a woman would be motivated to lie about being sexually assaulted for the sake of getting a lot of money is completely uncredited?

Yes, there are circumstances that can change how a statement is understood, so instead of making up stories look at the circumstances. Trump is about to meet Arianne Zucker for the first time.

Arianna Zucker:

Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.

Talking about her on the bus prior to meeting her Trump says:

I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her.You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything ... Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

If he were to just start kissing her or grab her by the pussy what she might or might not let him do is irrelevant. There is no indication that she would "let him", he is already doing it. She is just a shiny object to him that he thinks he is entitled to do what he wants with.

That you actually value something, is not the same as that something actually mattering. In other words, that you actually believe or desire for something to matter does not entail that it actually matters. For something to actual matter, it must matter independently of non-objective dispositions. — Bob Ross

You seem to use "actually mattering" as if "actually mattering" is meaningful independent of a context of something actually mattering to a person. However your usage of "actually mattering" seems like gibberish from my perspective.

Why think that "mattering" means something other than simply mattering to one or more persons with non-objective dispositions?

I submit to you, that you should accept a sense of nationalism in two respects. The first, in the sense that whatever nation you belong to you must have a vested interest in its flourishing and protection against other nations—or move to a different one (if you can). The second, in the sense that, if your country has substantially better politics than other ones, you should have a pride in it and want to expand its values to the more inferior ones (which leads to imperialism).

For those who are upset at my rhetoric (and perhaps the lens by which I am analyzing this), I challenge you to try to justify, in your response to this OP, e.g., why Western, democratic values should not be forcibly imposed on obviously degenerate, inferior societies at least in principle—like Talibanian Afghanistan, North Korea, Iran, China, India, etc. Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. E.g., if we could take over North Korea right now without grave consequences (such as nuclear war), then it is obviously in our duty to do so—and this is a form of imperialism. Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

I would say that cultures interact in much the same way individuals do. In both cases there are things like exchange, mutual cooperation, conflict, argument, persuasion, and coercion.

Cultural relativism is a silly idea, but the opposed idea of imposing values is also rather silly. One cannot impose values. When it comes to individuals, we will try to convince opponents and we will coerce them if they become too dangerous. It is the same with cultures. The values of persuasion and reason are really Western values themselves. In the West coercion is a last resort.

Some societies are so obviously structured in a way antithetical to the human good, that it is virtually impossible to justify leaving them be in the name of anti-imperialism. — Bob Ross

Anti-imperialism is a very limited justification in the first place. But the disorderedness of a society is not in itself a sufficient reason for intervention. Should we intervene in North Korea out of compassion? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Compassion can be a motive, but it is seldom a sufficient condition for action.

Actual mattering is objective; hypothetically mattering is subjective. What you are noting is that something can "actual matter" to a person subjectively; but if we parse that what that really means is that it hypothetically matters and this particular person is affirming the antecedent. E.g., just because someone thinks cars matter does not entail that "cars matter" is true, but it does entail that "if one cares about cares, then cars matter; and this person cares about cars, so cars matter to them".

Actual mattering is when someone matters independently of our desires or beliefs about it.