...

I'm not sure what you're on about man. All SFAD is saying is that, regardless of all speculations and testimonies about Larkin's personality, and irrespective of any bias, legal or public, there's no actual evidence to suggest that a rape didn't happen. That's all he's saying man. He's not attacking Gira, and he's not generalizing. He's speaking to this accusation and the specific incident in question and in response to all these "What ifs," and "but she saids," he's simply saying "yes, perhaps, but that doesn't mean she wasn't raped."

And he's right! None of this character questioning, or perceptions about her mental health or her history of dishonesty have any hard and fast bearing on whether or not she knowingly consented to having intercourse with Michael Gira.

That's not to say she DIDN'T consent, that's not to say she ISN'T lying... Only that there's been no reliable or valid reason to assume that she is lying.

It may look like he's taking sides, but the only thing SFAD is advocating is reason and logic. Maybe that confuses you, because in your mind anyone who says anything other than "it didn't happen" is automatically siding with the accuser, but that's not what's happening. We don't Fucking know, man! And no matter what kind of dirt you dig up on someone, none of it can or should be generalized to such an extent that that person is written off as a liar forever. Indeed, she could be lying about everything in her account, but not even that CONFIRMS or PROVES that she WAS NOT raped.

Take a step back and view this more objectively. We all have our opinions and gut feelings, but if anyone among us is brazen enough to say we KNOW what happened, then this conversation is forever fucked, because we're looking at the world and this case in two conoletely different and irreconcilable ways. If you think you *know* then you're fucking off your lid.

It must be really easy on the old noggin to view the world in such a black and white way, without hesitation or consideration for the complexities of the "truth." I envy you, but you'd make a god awful philosopher, and I'll bet you'd struggle with calculus too.

right, except you've missed that i did make this very point about the unprovability of the entire thing a few pages back.

there is plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that larkin is lying and making a false allegation which means it did not happen.

plenty of evidence in this thread and elsewhere.

if we are seriously getting into what can only be described as an absurd philosophical argument about the inability of anyone to actually prove anything then i feel condescended to.

i feel that what is being asked of me here is to say that there is a possibility grimm is telling the truth, and i refuse to do this because it means supporting her deliberate and malicious false rape allegations.

i do not think that anyone who has considered the evidence available so far could credibly and honestly come to the conclusion that grimm is not lying.

she admitted that she made false accusations of sexual assault about the members of a previous band she was in.


the idea that i should entertain the possibility of truth of the accusations of a pathological liar who has vowed to destroy the career of the person she is making the accusations about and who hides behind the excuse of mental illness when caught out making deliberate and malicious slander against innocent people for her own sick pleasure is frankly silly.

i cannot prove that if i shoot myself in the head with a gun it will kill me, i admit this. i am however still prepared to stand by the proposition that it will as a factual statement. i am prepared to take a priori evidence of the result as fact. if we are seriously having an argument where you demand i admit my inability to prove anything whatsoever then i won't continue.

i know grimm is a liar and i knew it from the start. i know gira is innocent and i knew it from the start. i am prepared to make those statements. what you are all pretending not to notice is that if grimm is lying then gira did not rape her. you are all relativists in a selective and fiercely stupid way which refuses to accept any logical consequences whatsoever. i am being told that grimm should be believed because she COULD be telling the truth, and therefore i cannot come to a conclusion otherwise. this is not an argument i accept.

i've been told by people there is a actual god who exists in the sky and created the world 2000 years ago, i know this is not true and am prepared to state that i know it is not true as a fact. and that is the end of me discussing provability with anyone in this thread. if you want to discuss the thing in itself and what we can and cannot know about it then we can do that elsewhere.

im going to make another statement.

not only is larkin grimm a liar, she is hiding behind mental illness as an excuse.

she deliberately and maliciously made false rape allegations designed to terrify, intimidate, humiliate and threaten musical collaborators that did not give her enough of their work, time and attention, or perhaps where simply the targets of her own projected failings. she then used the excuse of mental illness to disavow her own intentions and pretend she did not know exactly what she was doing when she made those false allegations.

she knew what she was doing and she would have gotten away with it under different circumstances, aided by a willing online hate mob who would take pleasure in destroying an innocents persons career and life.

to conclude.

larkin grimm is a despicable, malicious liar fully responsible for her actions and i suspect secretly proud of them. i believe she enjoyed the effect they had on their targets and will continue to lie. if she ever does admit the accusations are fake she will excuse herself claiming mental illness or some other version of victimhood. she is a liar and i hope she burns in hell.

Bullshit

No, there are just testimonials about her character. There's no evidence that shows or proves or is even directly related to whether or not she fully consented, sound mind and body and all, to engaging in the act in question. Just as there is no direct evidence that shows or proves that she DID NOT consent. Based on what's available, if you're open to one possibility you can't negate or refuse to consider the other without harming your own reasoning.


Good call.


That is exactly what is being asked of you.


Then I'm afraid you are not qualified to engage in a public discourse about this. You would not be accepted as a juror if the case went to trial. You are unfit to contribute to this discussion because you have a major bias that prevents you from being impartial. You would not LEGALLY be allowed to play a part in making a decision about this. That should tell you that you're coming at this all wrong.

You really shouldn't post on this particular thread when you're wasted. The scenario you mentioned is rape and would stand in court.

if you done discussing it why did you post four long posts about? If you don't want your opinions criticized don't post them.

And in your scenario, where was the mutual consent exactly?

DB is prone to lying himself (experienced the full force myself) but that Grimm woman really seems like an attention-seeking twat. Besides, whatever the outcome of this case is, I can't see her stance alone making much of a difference to a deep-rooted malaise planted in the way we live and breathe everywhere. It's not going to be her cries for help, real or not, that are going to make a change. If she's been raped, I suggest she tries to finish off the bastard either through the more immediate and unwelcoming court of law or she just tracks him down and chops his balls off.

and eaten! Don't forget that! the little children are being used as FOOD!

Fuck you Man. Fucking liar.

Pot, kettle, etc?

ok maybe you didnt edit your post suchfriends, the two identical ones with time gaps between them made me suspicious, plus you've done it before. there are posts that you didnt quote that make it clear whose side you're on. i apologise for the implication. rather than patronise me with another "but how do you know?" condescension you might answer how you weigh the damage to an innocent persons life and career against the false claims of someone who could have proved them initially if they were in fact true but deliberately chose not to.

what's disturbing is that it's clear that i am despised for pointing out that grimms allegations are false. apparently a persons career and reputation are fair game for destruction for the sake of a persecutory victim narrative about rape that provides easy think emotional responses and sensations of self righteousness. grimm is lying and not admitting it, and only one news organization is reporting the other side of the story. the damage has been done to gira who is ironically a rape victim himself, although he has the misfortune of being male and therefore evil.

clearly there is something very wrong with peoples reactions to her smear campaign. i wonder how many in this thread would react if the allegations were made against them or a friend of theirs? if they could afford to, would they go the futile route of libel for the sake of clearing their name, spending thousands upon thousands on an unprovable case? i doubt it. i doubt they wouldn't try and defend themselves either.

-

grimm is refusing to admit her lies and is claiming persecution on all sides and hiding under the excuse of mental illness. what's certain is that she won't stop this behaviour because it's working to get her attention. i suspect she'll go too far eventually.

Nope. Never on any posts in SYG in my twelve years posting here have I edited away anything to "keep it secret".. I have edited things for clarification or because I was wrong but I have NEVER tried to hide or deny it. What else is the edit feature for? Indeed you might want to consider it sometime ;)

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE this. RESPECT to you my brother!!

Well, indeed this is a very real risk, in my occupation this is always a real and present threat (false accusations).. the reality is you have to defend yourself in the most positive and accurate way. Attacking the character of the accuser likely will only in long run create sympathy for them. Stick to the FACTS that are demonstratable with substantive evidence. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO POSSIBLY WIN THE "COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION"

I didn't address it because frankly we don't know yet. All we know is there are accusations. We know Gira hasn't denied a sexual encounter. We will have to wait and see now won't we which has been my point the entire time. IF Gira proves to be innocent, then he will have some serious damage control and I would obviously be his biggest defender!


No, people were upset, myself included, about the insensitivity and brashness of your remarks and approach. Your tone now is much more diplomatic and appreciable.

Until the facts are truly presented, we don't know if its a smear campaign at all. Its an opinion you are free to have, but its one not yet supported by any evidence or the lack there of.


We don't know they are lies yet. It is yet to be determined.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dead_battery again.

We do truly do live in remarkable times

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Rob, you get a grip, man, I don't understand your point, you seem ready to hang Gira from a lightpole based on a twitter post. You seem to want to spin my opinon on this specific situation into some kind of global policy I don't have about all male-female relationships, so knock it off. You keep moving off the topic. Focus not on me but on Larkin Grimm and what other people are saying about her - her own fucking band for crissakes. Let me remind you, Gira had to cancel a tour to Australia because of her claims. Personally, I think she was trying to time this to piggyback with Lady Gaga's set at the Academy Awards and its victim theme.

she was piggybacking off keshas claim

which may or may not be legit i dont know.

grimms isnt and those in this thread pretending otherwise or playing technicalities rather than admit they were wrong are despicable.

I think youmissed rob's point entirely. He was clarifying the definition of rape and sexual assault because some posters here had very distorted and frankly wrong definitions.