This is a tough one, but I say you error on the side of freedom. Let the kids transfer if they want. Sure it is going to be messy, when is freedom not? The old structures (already showing significant cracks) may not survive all the change that is happening. So be it. New structures will arise (super conferences, relegation / promotion, league of top 30 or so teams, etc.). Some will like it, some will bemoan the lost past, but if there's one thing that life has taught me, it is that you can't go back to some imagined better past. In part because you can't unwind all of the 'good' change from all of the 'bad', and in part because the past usually wasn't as great as people remember it (see Rosy Retrospection, or the old Roman phrase: "memoria praeteritorum bonorum").
"all coaches I look at before Bert"
This can actually stand alone. All coaches I look at before I look at Bert.
Too late, there's already one with my name on it. And they named it that after my time there, so I'm taking full credit despite having nothing to do with it at all.
I don't mind state ignorance. A european doesn't need to be able to identify our states to intelligently discuss geo-politics in most cases, and the same applies for us when it comes to their internal geography.
But national geography, especially with the major players...yeah, that's pretty critical.
You think of your penis the way you want to, but mine's way to important to me to ever associate with Florida, despite how the state is shaped.
It would be fascinating to try and figure out where he got some of his notions:
- California, Texas, and Florida likely from various pop culture and news.
- How'd he get Washington and Oreo 'right'?
- How da fuk did he get Arkansas right?
- What about Ohio has him thinking it is everywhere, and definitely living rent free in his head?
- Cereal...Quaker Oats...but how?!?
- How'd he get Wisconsin right?
- I'm going to assume West Virginia (and song) has something to do with the game Fallout 76.
- Kansas...something told him it was definitely in the area he picked, but what? Can't be Wizard of Oz, can it? How else does Kansas get into his brain, along with being somewhat close?
I've got a head for maps, so maybe that colors my thinking on this, but I don't know how you can be remotely informed enough to have a useful opinion about the world if you don't have at least a rough handle on where major players in international affairs are located.
Maybe you get partial credit if you label Iraq or Pakistan as Iran, since that's close?
Reg: Right. Now, uh, item four: attainment of world supremacy within the next five years. Uh, Francis, you've been doing some work on this.
FRANCIS: Yeah. Thank you, Reg. Well, quite frankly, siblings, I think five years is optimistic, unless we can smash the Roman empire within the next twelve months.
REG: Twelve months?
FRANCIS: Yeah, twelve months. And, let's face it. As empires go, this is the big one, so we've got to get up off our arses and stop just talking about it!
I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, and have been defending that quite a bit, but there are a variety of team rules that we don't know of that they can already have evidence of violation. I certainly hope Ryan and team know more than we do in making the move from indefinite suspension to kicked off the team, but there is a difference there that can matter quite a bit.
A quick google search is telling me that there were charges filed.
If someone brings up duke lacrosse as a reason to say, "who knows, could go either way," then yeah, BS. If they are bringing it up as a reason not to ditch innocent until proven guilty, it makes more sense. I've seen people at this site call for guilty until proven innocent in these cases and also claim that people wouldn't be arrested if they weren't guilty. Personally, I find such attitudes hatefully un-American, even though it is their right to proclaim them.
To be clear, I'm not saying that you hold with either notion I mention above.
What would be applied from the Baylor example? Duke Lacrosse is the most high profile example of a reason not to do as some (outliers) on this site have called for, a completely unconstitutional guilty until proven innocent stance. Is the Baylor example a counter to that?
I don't buy this. The halcyon past of absolute morals is full of all manner of crime, sin, depravity, and whatever else you want to find. We forget about how bad the past was in so many instances, and then ascribe current ills to whatever ax we want to grind about kids these days, teachers, parents, or whatever.
every indication is that we have those already in murder cases, so, yeah....
We already have this. Making up shit and reporting to the police is a crime, and one that at times is prosecuted. If there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed such a crime, I have no problem with prosecution and conviction, whether it is about sexual assault or petty theft.
I don't know of any cases of someone being convicted for false reporting of a rape allegation when later evidence showed that the original allegation was true. Perhaps it happens, and perhaps even without happening it has a chilling effect on reporting, but when it comes to unintended consequences, we should certainly be worried about a society with no law against making up shit and reporting on people.
Because if a bulk of the comments (from people that were ready to burn MSU and PSU to the ground) are calling to have these guys kicked off but want to make sure they have all the facts first, there seems to be a disconnect.
I'd say there are two main groups, one that is ready to rush to judgement and kick them off the team. The other wants to have more facts and is likely to support indefinite suspension until more facts come to light (might be only a matter of days). I think in the part I quoted you are conflating those two groups as having conflicting opinions.
Apart from them, you have a fringe on each side; one that sees them as guilty until proven innocent, and one that falls into that victim blame, don't believe the woman camp. Both are a pretty small minority from what I can see.
Great post. A lot of good information on why any allegation of this nature should be taken very seriously. Just as it confirms that we should never adopt (not you by any means) a standard of guilty until proven innocent (which I have seen advocated by more than one in this thread).
"Guilty until proven innocent"
Not the legal system enshrined in the Constitution that so many brave men and women have fought and died to protect over the centuries. Your right to express such an opinion is enshrined in that same Constitution, but that goes against everything I believe about what it means to support and defend the Constitution.
No, no. You don't punish if they are found not guilty, only if the false allegation is found to have been so in a separate trial. If there is convictable proof of a false police report, it should be prosecuted in any case.
This would be compelling evidence of exactly why not to rush to judgement.
The problem (one of many) is that some people are confusing those who are calling for restraint in judgement with those who disregard the woman's story, victim blame, etc. And yeah, sometimes the first is one of the tactics of that later, repugnant group. But it is quite possible to respect women, recognize what a problem victims being believed is, etc. and still also believe in letting facts come out and not rushing to judgement.
I get why it is infuriating to see the arguments for our rule of law justice system being twisted for foul purposes, but in most instances I have seen in this thread, that is not happening. I myself have always been a person who believes in the way our justice system is supposed to work (while recognizing that it often doesn't), and never want to rush to judgement in any case, regardless of what it involves. Hopefully people will take me at my word on that.
Not hard to get behind a take like this, especially C.
As an edit, I don't mean this in any way as a presumption that they will be cleared. Just that indefinite lasts until more facts come out either way.
Yeah, I don't know why getting consent at any stage would make one automatically assume anything. If people can claim (rightly) that consent beforehand doesn't completely clear a person, than why would trying to establish consent after not be a legitimate idea?
That said, I can see how trying to get consent to cover your tracks would work too. I just don't see how it makes things automatic either way.
Yeah, I don't see how there's a problem with this.
And for those calling for an immediate removal from the team, what happens if they would happen to be completely exonerated? Would you then put them back on the team? How is that different than an indefinite suspension that waits for facts, other than the presumption of guilt part?
The key here is that in this case, indefinite actually means that. It isn't some BS term that turns into three weeks after then noise settles, which happens in a lot of college cases (of lesser magnitude) of rule breaking. This is, and really has to be indefinite until they are cleared, and then it can be judged further.
I don't want to defend these guys, and I won't, but the attitude of, "They wouldn't be arrested if they weren't guilty" is the kind of thing that gets people thrown off of juries because our system says they can't be impartial.
Not that you have a duty to be impartial on an internet forum, but damn.
And really, it seems a bit disrespectful of the police to assume that they will have a higher bar of 'proof' for filing charges if there are famous people involved. I'd rather assume that they are going to go straight by the book for fear of problems either way. If they choose not to file charges, how easy do the allegations of protecting OSU football write themselves? Presumably when she walks in and makes the allegations, the police are in for a rough ride either way. How else to proceed other than carefully?
Again, this is not a defense in any way of the two accused, nor a statement on her veracity either way.
I read the article as saying the video was after the fact. That still doesn't prove anything, as it can be claimed to be coerced, but it is an important distinction.
If forced to assume (and I wouldn't want to), I'd assume that there's something up with the video that would lead police to believe it wasn't genuine.