|
Post by pepperbrooks on Aug 1, 2015 17:48:31 GMT -5
You seem pretty sure on what didn't happen. No, I'm just unwilling to participate in the destruction of a man's life when there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the acts he was accused of. I wasn't there, you weren't there, no one in this thread was there. None of us definitively know what happened, and unfortunately, because of legalities and technicalities, we likely won't ever know. Could it have happened? Sure. Could it all be a lie? Sure, but no one posting in this thread actually knows because none of us have enough information to know. So, I will support Rick Butler and Sports Performance until new information comes to light. You're free to choose to do otherwise. Wow. Can I sell you a bridge while we're talking, too?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 17:52:02 GMT -5
What sort of proof would be required? Would you have to be there?
I don't understand any of this reasoning. Butler did not and does not deny it happened.
|
|
|
Post by chisovnik on Aug 1, 2015 18:24:39 GMT -5
No, which is why I'm not saying that this happened or that this didn't happen. Well, you're pretty much saying that it didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 18:30:46 GMT -5
You seem pretty sure on what didn't happen. ... I wasn't there, you weren't there, no one in this thread was there. None of us definitively know what happened, and unfortunately, because of legalities and technicalities, we likely won't ever know. Could it have happened? Sure. Could it all be a lie? Sure, but no one posting in this thread actually knows because none of us have enough information to know.... The above quote is the most logical, unemotional, unbiased response on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by pepperbrooks on Aug 1, 2015 19:04:57 GMT -5
... I wasn't there, you weren't there, no one in this thread was there. None of us definitively know what happened, and unfortunately, because of legalities and technicalities, we likely won't ever know. Could it have happened? Sure. Could it all be a lie? Sure, but no one posting in this thread actually knows because none of us have enough information to know.... The above quote is the most logical, unemotional, unbiased response on this thread. ...that doesn't in any way take into account factual information. Plus he says he wasn't there but he sides with Butler, doesn't stay neutral.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:11:01 GMT -5
Just that portion of the comment is the most logical, unemotional, unbiased respone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:21:41 GMT -5
No, which is why I'm not saying that this happened or that this didn't happen. Well, you're pretty much saying that it didn't. I'm not. I've said several times that it is very possible that it did happen. It's also very possible that it didn't. I have no idea if it did, but again, I am unwilling to participate in the destruction of this man's life and reputation anonymously on the internet based on something that was never proven. Notice that I also am not attacking the integrity of the accusers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:22:16 GMT -5
Except what happened is not in dispute. MAYBE the ages of the players, although I don't even think that is. I just don't understand why facts are being treated as rumors or "he said/she said." Butler's objection was that USAV didn't specifically prohibit the relationships, NOT that the relationships didn't occur.
People can argue about forgiveness, changing mores, etc. etc. But the facts aren't in dispute.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:26:20 GMT -5
Except what happened is not in dispute. MAYBE the ages of the players, although I don't even think that is. I just don't understand why facts are being treated as rumors or "he said/she said." Butler's objection was that USAV didn't specifically prohibit the relationships, NOT that the relationships didn't occur. People can argue about forgiveness, changing mores, etc. etc. But the facts aren't in dispute. Well, as far as I understand, the accusers allege that the sexual relationship occurred while they were underage, while Butler alleges that the sexual relationships occurred after they had turned 18, and after they had left the club, and alleges that the relationships were not just sexual, but that he dated these women. That's a pretty big discrepancy in the "facts."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:26:48 GMT -5
Lord help us all if this "more" changes...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:28:38 GMT -5
The definition of 'fact' - a thing that is indisputably the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:32:15 GMT -5
Now since this is like fox news vs. Msnbc. Or a Republican vs. Democrat. Type of a thread. Please attack me from both sides. Maybe not the best choice of words.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:32:36 GMT -5
Except what happened is not in dispute. MAYBE the ages of the players, although I don't even think that is. I just don't understand why facts are being treated as rumors or "he said/she said." Butler's objection was that USAV didn't specifically prohibit the relationships, NOT that the relationships didn't occur. People can argue about forgiveness, changing mores, etc. etc. But the facts aren't in dispute. Well, as far as I understand, the accusers allege that the sexual relationship occurred while they were underage, while Butler alleges that the sexual relationships occurred after they had turned 18, and after they had left the club, and alleges that the relationships were not just sexual, but that he dated these women. That's a pretty big discrepancy in the "facts." Except the dates don't back up Butler's assertion. It also wasn't what he stressed to USAV. His objection was that their definition of misbehavior was too vague. Fact: Butler thought what he did was OK. It's up to you whether you agree with him or not, but that's certainly not the argument I'd be making if I were you. There are much better ones. Like forgiveness. But carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 19:47:46 GMT -5
Well, as far as I understand, the accusers allege that the sexual relationship occurred while they were underage, while Butler alleges that the sexual relationships occurred after they had turned 18, and after they had left the club, and alleges that the relationships were not just sexual, but that he dated these women. That's a pretty big discrepancy in the "facts." Except the dates don't back up Butler's assertion. It also wasn't what he stressed to USAV. His objection was that their definition of misbehavior was too vague. Fact: Butler thought what he did was OK. It's up to you whether you agree with him or not, but that's certainly not the argument I'd be making if I were you. There are much better ones. Like forgiveness. But carry on. I don't think I've made the argument that I think that what he allegedly did was okay. I certainly don't believe that.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 1, 2015 19:51:08 GMT -5
Except the dates don't back up Butler's assertion. It also wasn't what he stressed to USAV. His objection was that their definition of misbehavior was too vague. Fact: Butler thought what he did was OK. It's up to you whether you agree with him or not, but that's certainly not the argument I'd be making if I were you. There are much better ones. Like forgiveness. But carry on. I don't think I've made the argument that I think that what he allegedly did was okay. I certainly don't believe that. Correct, your argument has been that the only way a rapist should be found guilty is if an unbiased witness is in the room or it is caught on film.
|
|