Michael Irvin being investigated for sexual assault

[mattjames2010]

This is becoming a "I never said" argument. My simple point is that she remembers fighting Irvin off. I would assume that means Irvin was seeking some type physical contact.


Not another person who doesn't know what a straw man is. Sigh.
I didn't say you said what you allege I said you said. I'm building my case on why detectives must first develop suspects and then piece together evidence.
Furthermore, you keep pointing to conviction but no one here has convicted Irvin. Talk about a strawman.


You may treat it as a court of law, but it's a forum. Seems like you're out of touch with reality.
Second, my examples were for a specific purpose. But I see you didn't want to answer so I take it you know where I was going with it.


Now you're reaching.
First, how is mentioning what Irvin has done in the past tarnishing his reputation? Seems to me Irvin has tarnished his own reputation.
Second, Irvin - in all the criticism he received for his indiscretions - was never convicted of a crime nor faced criminal punishment.
I'm surprised you even raised this as an argument.


You mean create a context.
You're the one talking about the court of law applying even in situations like a discussion forum. Then you have the NERVE to say a tarnished reputation is the same as criminal punishment. Will the defendant rise. I now sentence you to ... A life time of tarnished reputation. You are free to go serve your sentence



Knowing you did? You're not the only one in this thread. And my response was based on others saying the woman is probably lying. They, then, pointed out Irvin's history. How do you vilify someone with the truth of what he did?


I don't even understand what this means.



Again, this is your problem. No one is saying the history of either means Irvin is guilty or the woman is innocent. People, rather, are saying why we should consider the credibility of one or the other. But we know this case still needs to proceed to a final conclusion.


I'm not losing context. I'm establishing context because my point is that there are other concepts to consider other than innocent until proven guilty. We can also discuss why we may find one party more credible than the other. Or why even when we don't know all the answers or have all the evidence, we still make decisions based on the information we do have.
You want to make this an innocent until proven guilty argument. But if you don't like that we don't gold that standard here, that's on you. You can always leave and argue cases in court or join a legal forum.


So basically without any conclusive evidence that he lost or stole your property, you will give him further responsibility because of his previous actions. Even though he hasn't been proven guilty, you take action anyway.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. That wasn't so hard now was it.



It's interesting that in quoting the definition of bias you overlooked the key word that provides context and supports my point.
It's that word SOMETIMES.
Let me translate this for you. SOMETIMES bias is unreasoned, and SOMETIMES it is reasoned.
You're trying to school me on language and definition and you don't understand what the world "sometimes" means.





You mean it wasn't clear to YOU. But you're trying to make the totality of discussion an issue of "innocent until proven guilty". So, of course, you wouldn't understand nor would it be clear to you.



I thought we move past the "family emotion" issue? You've acknowledged what I was getting at with the example of your irresponsible friend.




Unfortunately for you, not everything is defined by the parameters you wish to define them.
The issue here is not your A or B.

Rather the issue is:

A. Should we just believe the woman is lying because it's Irvin and he can have a number of women without having to force one or
B. Men of power, influence and celebrity like Irvin, who also has a history of sexual assaults and false allegations against him, can't possibly do such things.

That is the issue that was being discussed before you offered your "innocent until proven guilty" mantra because you don't like how people decide to discuss topics in a discussion forum.

But you're not reading this dribble anyway. So I don't expect an answer to my question either.

What is more reasonable to assume:

A. That everything is a matter of "innocent until proven guilty" or
B. That some issues that don't rise to a legal standard can be evaluated

Well, I have some more free time on my hand. So I'll entertain you some more. Let's start from the top

"Not another person who doesn't know what a straw man is. Sigh.
I didn't say you said what you allege I said you said. I'm building my case on why detectives must first develop suspects and then piece together evidence.
Furthermore, you keep pointing to conviction but no one here has convicted Irvin. Talk about a strawman."

Convicted as in, the court of public opinion? Of course he has. When someone blatantly says "I believe Michael Irvin had his rape cap on" - He's convicted. Remember, not everyone, I didn't respond to everyone saying that - I responded to one specific person who said that.

The issue with court of public opinion is, everyone is the judge. But again, context - I was responding specifically to the person who said he had his rape cap on.

"Now you're reaching.
First, how is mentioning what Irvin has done in the past tarnishing his reputation? Seems to me Irvin has tarnished his own reputation.
Second, Irvin - in all the criticism he received for his indiscretion - was never convicted of a crime nor faced criminal punishment.
I'm surprised you even raised this as an argument."

No, not just "mentioning his past" - saying that his past is indicative of what he did now. Using his past to judge a case unrelated. Again, when someone says "I believe the women normally. I think Michael Irvin had his rape cap on" - No matter how you feel about his past 20 years ago, this is still damaging. You can still damage someone with a shaky reputation further.

"You mean create a context.
You're the one talking about the court of law applying even in situations like a discussion forum. Then you have the NERVE to say a tarnished reputation is the same as criminal punishment. Will the defendant rise. I know sentence you to ... A life time of tarnished reputation. You are free to go serve your sentence "

Read my last few replies, understand the context.

"Knowing you did? You're not the only one in this thread. And my response was based on others saying the woman is probably lying. They, then, pointed out Irvin's history. How do you vilify someone with the truth of what he did?"

....then maybe next time you actually go back to the original replies for context? MY reply wasn't on what "otherS" said, my response was to one specific person who criticized someone for bias, while showing their own bias at the same time. Now I'm getting why you are so lost in this discussion, you couldn't even bother to look back through the discussion I was having before you jumped in.

"So basically without any conclusive evidence that he lost or stole your property, you will give him further responsibility because of his previous actions. Even though he hasn't been proven guilty, you take action anyway.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. That wasn't so hard now was it. "

I explained it in more detail than should have been needed.

I would not be keeping my stuff from my friend while accusing him of stealing - I would be keeping it from him because I KNOW that it has disappeared - again, whether he's lying, irresponsible, or if he's truthful and really doesn't know what happened to them (Maybe an outside party is taking it from him?)

You get what I'm trying to avoid here is jumping to conclusions and throwing out accusations I can't 100% back up, right? The issue with you giving out analogies that could have "multiple meanings" is that it could easily benefit my point as well. Which it did here, and I explained it in detail. Moving on...

"
It's interesting that in quoting the definition of bias you overlooked the key word that provides context and supports my point.
It's that word SOMETIMES.
Let me translate this for you. SOMETIMES bias is unreasoned, and SOMETIMES it is reasoned.
You're trying to school me on language and definition and you don't understand what the world "sometimes" means."

Did you read where I said i proved you were being unreasonable? Which means I acknowledged that part of the definition?

"A. Should we just believe the woman is lying because it's Irvin and he can have a number of women without having to force one or
B. Men of power, influence and celebrity like Irvin, who also has a history of sexual assaults and false allegations against him, can't possibly do such things."

Both that A and B, without evidence to back either up, would be wrong to conclude.

"you don't like how people decide to discuss topics in a discussion forum."

LOL am I going to ban them from the forum? I simply step in and criticize their posts. They can continue to spam the same thing after I break down their comments. But yes, I will give you the most logical stance - if you want to continue to be unreasonable, that's up to you.

"A. That everything is a matter of "innocent until proven guilty" or
B. That some issues that don't rise to a legal standard can be evaluated"

Everything is a matter of innocent until proven guilty - if someone makes an accusation, I expect substantial evidence to back up the claim. Again, you can come to whatever unreasonable conclusion you like - but if you see a lack of evidence and still choose one side, you are most likely biased or there is a form of blind faith in a person.

 

[mattjames2010]

Welcome to the insanity of the 21st Century where drunkenness means people aren't responsible for their choices.

This is a murky area - I understand everyone has a point where, when drinking, their decision making is simply too poor to be considered consent. I also understand that the amount of drinks it takes for someone to get this drunk differs.

I do think there may be a bit of a double standard here. I read, I believe it was her book, Amy Schumer said a college jock came knocking on her door drunk one night and she took advantage of that opportunity to have sex with him. But to some people, any form of "drunk" is the cut off limit for sex - so was that her admitting to rape?

I would say, if people are going to go out and get drunk and they don't want to make any bad decisions - always have an escort. I have been that for a few of my friends and they always got home in one piece without anything damaging happening to them. If you don't want to wake up next to someone that looks like a walking potato (Amy Schumer), have a reliable friend there that leads you to the car rather than her bedroom.

 

[Trouty]

And for anyone else that has the stance of the two people I'm debating with here - this is a good movie to watch to see why throwing logic out the window in favor or bias and emotion is never a good idea in situations such as this.

That was an unreal film, Matt. So, so good. You guys really should watch it. It's in Danish, I believe.

 

[willia451]

The great wall of text.

 

[tyke1doe]

Well, I have some more free time on my hand. So I'll entertain you some more. Let's start from the top

Convicted as in, the court of public opinion? Of course he has. When someone blatantly says "I believe Michael Irvin had his rape cap on" - He's convicted. Remember, not everyone, I didn't respond to everyone saying that - I responded to one specific person who said that.

No, sir. Remember, you are the one who wants to apply the court of law to these situations. If so, then someone making an opinion is NOT the same as a conviction.
You can't have it both ways. Either we're playing by the rules of the court of law or we're not.

The issue with court of public opinion is, everyone is the judge. But again, context - I was responding specifically to the person who said he had his rape cap on.

I'll research the comment.

No, not just "mentioning his past" - saying that his past is indicative of what he did now. Using his past to judge a case unrelated. Again, when someone says "I believe the women normally. I think Michael Irvin had his rape cap on" - No matter how you feel about his past 20 years ago, this is still damaging. You can still damage someone with a shaky reputation further.

I don't see that as damaging his reputation as I doubt anything said on this discussion forum makes that much difference.
Second, he is merely giving his opinion. In a charge like this, people have opinions. Those opinions may be correct; they may be wrong. And people base their opinions on a myriad of reasons. I can understand you not wanting to render an opinion until the case is settled. But others aren't you.

....then maybe next time you actually go back to the original replies for context? MY reply wasn't on what "otherS" said, my response was to one specific person who criticized someone for bias, while showing their own bias at the same time. Now I'm getting why you are so lost in this discussion, you couldn't even bother to look back through the discussion I was having before you jumped in.

Actually, you had conversations with several posters. And I was following and noted a general comparison you made about women lying to a specific comparison to Irvin (a singular male). That's what really caught my attention as it relates to your comments.

I explained it in more detail than should have been needed.

No, it was needed.

I would not be keeping my stuff from my friend while accusing him of stealing - I would be keeping it from him because I KNOW that it has disappeared - again, whether he's lying, irresponsible, or if he's truthful and really doesn't know what happened to them (Maybe an outside party is taking it from him?)

The stealing isn't the issue. The issue/point of the example is ... even though you don't have all the information about the situation, you react to guard yourself. You make certain judgments based on the available information, and you act. You don't know for certain, but you know enough to do something.
That, my friend, is discernment. And that's what I'm talking about. Discernment doesn't have to be 100 percent correct. It doesn't have to have all the evidence. It just knows enough to make a decision and inform your brain not to ignore certain clues that may lead you to the wrong conclusion and take steps to assure you protect yourself.

You get what I'm trying to avoid here is jumping to conclusions and throwing out accusations I can't 100% back up, right? The issue with you giving out analogies that could have "multiple meanings" is that it could easily benefit my point as well. Which it did here, and I explained it in detail. Moving on...

Usually, the person who gives the example also gives the reason for the example. You're not suppose to venture on your own to pick out an answer out of context. You know those standardized test comparisons ... apple is to orange as pear is to ... a) tangerine b) cherry c) grapefruit ... I'm sure a person could argue why the answer should be a. b. or c. But if you know the test and the type comparisons the test makers are generally looking for, you must provide the answer they're looking for, not your own.
I gave the reason for the example. But you answered my question, even if you don't think you did. I'm satisfied with your answer, which fits what I thought.

Did you read where I said i proved you were being unreasonable? Which means I acknowledged that part of the definition?

You PROVED I was being unreasonable? Really? Where is that?

"A. Should we just believe the woman is lying because it's Irvin and he can have a number of women without having to force one or
B. Men of power, influence and celebrity like Irvin, who also has a history of sexual assaults and false allegations against him, can't possibly do such things."

Both that A and B, without evidence to back either up, would be wrong to conclude.

But that's where the disconnect comes with respect to this discussion. Both are generalizations. Yes, we don't know who is telling the truth in this case. But we can still say we believe the woman or we believe Irvin. Why is that so bad on a discussion forum?

LOL am I going to ban them from the forum? I simply step in and criticize their posts. They can continue to spam the same thing after I break down their comments. But yes, I will give you the most logical stance - if you want to continue to be unreasonable, that's up to you.

You not liking how people decide to discuss topics does not mean you can or will ban them from the forum. Your criticism is an example of you not liking their posts or how the discussion is going. But what I'm saying is that we're not necessarily bound by the "innocent until proven guilty" standard in a discussion forum. You can say you disagree. But we don't. So what are you going to continue to do? Keep telling us your position is more reasonable. By your standard, yes. By the standard of discussion forums and in the court of public opinion, no.

"A. That everything is a matter of "innocent until proven guilty" or
B. That some issues that don't rise to a legal standard can be evaluated"

Everything is a matter of innocent until proven guilty - if someone makes an accusation, I expect substantial evidence to back up the claim. Again, you can come to whatever unreasonable conclusion you like - but if you see a lack of evidence and still choose one side, you are most likely biased or there is a form of blind faith in a person.

I love how people believe reason and logic is ONLY on their side. No, not everything can be proven. But we still have to make decisions in life based on the information we have available. That is logical and reasonable too.

But you're right. We've gone round and round on this issue. You can have the last word.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

And for anyone else that has the stance of the two people I'm debating with here - this is a good movie to watch to see why throwing logic out the window in favor or bias and emotion is never a good idea in situations such as this.

Jyn is great!

 

[Reverend Conehead]

This is a murky area - I understand everyone has a point where, when drinking, their decision making is simply too poor to be considered consent. I also understand that the amount of drinks it takes for someone to get this drunk differs.

I do think there may be a bit of a double standard here. I read, I believe it was her book, Amy Schumer said a college jock came knocking on her door drunk one night and she took advantage of that opportunity to have sex with him. But to some people, any form of "drunk" is the cut off limit for sex - so was that her admitting to rape?

I would say, if people are going to go out and get drunk and they don't want to make any bad decisions - always have an escort. I have been that for a few of my friends and they always got home in one piece without anything damaging happening to them. If you don't want to wake up next to someone that looks like a walking potato (Amy Schumer), have a reliable friend there that leads you to the car rather than her bedroom.

Where it stems from was the originally reasonable law that a person who is incapacitated by alcohol cannot understand what's happening around them and therefore cannot consent to sex. Somehow that has become warped into any level of drunkenness meaning someone cannot consent, which is complete hogwash. "Drunk" is an imprecise term and can mean anything from feeling good from a few drinks to passed out and in danger of dying from alcohol poisoning. The truth is if you're lucid and can walk and talk you should be held responsible for the decisions you make while on alcohol. If you get drunk and slug a cop, I can guarantee you the excuse "I was drunk and therefore could not control my actions" won't fly. If someone is drunk and CHOOSES sex, there's no way in hell it's rape. If someone is incapacitated by alcohol, either passed out or so sloshed they have no clue what's going on and someone has sex with them, then that's rape. We can't let the extremists get away from the "incapacitated" definition and haul people off to prison for having sex with a tipsy person who of their own volition had sex. Hold people responsible for the choices they make.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

You are making a simple accusation, show where I "backtracked" - My stance has been consistent throughout. I have yet to shame this woman or any other woman - you are now pulling stuff out of your butt. You either have me mixed up with someone else or you are blatantly lying.

Me stating that both genders are prone to lying/getting things wrong is me describing a "flaw" within humans. It is not gender specific. I will ask you again, quote me where I "generalized" - I have even stated, I have no idea if this woman is lying or not the same way I don't know if Irvin committed a crime. I am waiting. No assumptions here, just that more evidence is needed and that an accusation and the one accused denying it is not enough.

"Yes, innocent until proven guilty but with Irvin's past, to me I choose to be realistic as to his ouevre, lifestyle and penchant for lying"

You can't be for "innocent until proven guilty" while in the same breath calling it "realistic" to believe an accuser despite lack of substantial evidence to prove guilt. Using evidence gathered 20 years ago to an unrelated crime is not exactly "realistic" - you are still assuming and showing bias.

Keep backtracking, stout lad, pretty soon you will come around to the fact that Irvin, based on his past, and the accuser, of whom we have no history, points to an alley cat vs. a woman who took a rape kit. Happens all the time. And you know what, men usually lose the case or plea out of the case.
My bias is based on reputation and the lack of one (as of yet) of the victim. Police do it all the time. Juries do it all the time. School principals do it all the time.
I guess all of us are judged by priors. And who are heroes are. And that's too bad, matey.
Carry on. I expect you won't be invited to the conference on women's status.
I hope your sis and mom will still love you.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Dismissing something for being fiction is ridiculous. Fiction often has commentary on the real world - many iconic books taught in schools across the nation are fiction to teach kids not only politics but the social side of things.

And you are completely wrong about this film - it shows the impact of what lies, assumptions, and rumors can do to someone even after the truth is revealed. Again, watch the movie - this movie is pretty much directed at you (And from this thread, sadly, a lot of other people as well)

I would suggest you try a more manly film such as "Das Boot" or "A Serious Man." I am sure Irvin, between parties, would love it.
Your film just cries "Man Victim Cries!"
Atlas shrugged.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Welcome to the insanity of the 21st Century where drunkenness means people aren't responsible for their choices.

Me mum agrees. She told me, just because she throws an ocassional CIG butt to me head does not mean she rejects the maternal concern.
But, she bitterly assails what she says is me Romo agenda.
Maybe she needs to be in a home.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Me mum agrees. She told me, just because she throws an ocassional CIG butt to me head does not mean she rejects the maternal concern.
But, she bitterly assails what she says is me Romo agenda.
Maybe she needs to be in a home.

I didn't mean that, mum!!!

 

[Beast_from_East]

This will all come down to the DNA evidence from the rape kit.................Irvin says they didn't have sex, so if the rape kit comes back positive with Irvin's DNA, then he is toast. He will have been caught lying and his entire credibility will be out the window.

If the DNA test comes back negative, then its a he said, she said incident and rape will be very, very hard to prove. Irvin should be in the clear if the test comes back negative, don't see how a DA or a grand jury could indict without any physical evidence.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

You have backtracked plenty. Look back at your posts and you will find plenty of gerneralizatons of women, all meant to paint Irvin as victim and women as tarts.
Ga'head!
Yes, innocent until proven guilty, but with Irvin's past, to me I choose to be realistic as to his ouevre, lifestyle and penchant for lying: "I was looking for a dumpster to throw away my friend's paraphernalia ...the ladies in my room were just visiting ... I was cutting hair and the scissors flew out of my hands .... Someone tossed those drugs under the motel bed ..."
But, innocent until proven guilty,I know.

Sometimes I impress myself. Damnation that was good!

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

That was an unreal film, Matt. So, so good. You guys really should watch it. It's in Danish, I believe.

Danish????
O, just turn in your man card, poste haste! Hooligan! Viking aggressor!

 

[aria]

What a POS, way to represent the DC! I hope he rots in hell. What a poor excuse for a human being. He and Jerry are cut from the same cloth.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

This will all come down to the DNA evidence from the rape kit.................Irvin says they didn't have sex, so if the rape kit comes back positive with Irvin's DNA, then he is toast. He will have been caught lying and his entire credibility will be out the window.

If the DNA test comes back negative, then its a he said, she said incident and rape will be very, very hard to prove. Irvin should be in the clear if the test comes back negative, don't see how a DA or a grand jury could indict without any physical evidence.

^^^ This. I hope he didn't do this crap, but if he did, he'll lose all my support. I used to be a big OJ fan also. Still, at this point, we just don't know.

 

[EST_1986]

What a POS, way to represent the DC! I hope he rots in hell. What a poor excuse for a human being. He and Jerry are cut from the same cloth.

You do know he hasn't been convicted of anything right?

 

[Philmonroe]

Okay. I'm glad you got that out of your system.

Next time you or others post such unprovable stuff I will bring it up again so it will never be out of my system.

 

[tyke1doe]

Next time you or others post such unprovable stuff I will bring it up again so it will never be out of my system.

Hey, your self torture not mine.

 

[tyke1doe]

What a POS, way to represent the DC! I hope he rots in hell. What a poor excuse for a human being. He and Jerry are cut from the same cloth.

Now, this is what you were talking about @CanadianCowboysFan @mattjames2010