
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cornell University Situation Is Going To Turn Into Another Duke Lacrosse Case Isn't It?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:47 am to QJenk
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:47 am to QJenk
quote:
Well, in the lawsuit, she is most definitely not saying that she consented to every single sexual activity.
So?
I'd say her initial statements hold more weight than what she is trying to say later for a lawsuit in order to get paid. Initially she probably told the actual truth because she got it in her mind that what the boys did was rape (to cover for her poor decisions) when by law it turns out it wasn't. So for the lawsuit she has to then backtrack to make it rape.
She participated in whore activities and was cool with it until she told her friends and they judged her for it. Then she got rejected by the frat house. So only then she went to the cops to report and based on what she told them it was pretty clear no rape happened. But she couldn't accept that because it hurt her reputation so she had to continue with the charade and also change her story to help with the lawsuit.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 11:59 am
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:53 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Because she's lying whore relying on dipshits like you to not take her to task.
Honest question: Are you open at all to your current position being wrong?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:56 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
You can't say that without knowing what actually happened.
You absolutely can. Even if you just look at the statement from 2024 you can tell these kids are assholes and that it never should have went as far as it did. It doesnt make it illegal but it does make them assholes.
You don't need to know legal specifics to know what occurred there went too far and should have been stopped and prevented from one or more of those young men.
Even if the Jane never dissented one or more of them should have protected her from herself and his brothers.
The thing is, you know that. You're just trying to be an know it all a-hole.
If you want to take it from the Bible, it says men present the role as protectors through principles of servant leadership, sacrifice, and caring for the vulnerable.
If you want to take it from the modern ethics of guardianship, he code of a protector s a set of unwritten principles focused on using strength, influence, and capability to safeguard others from harm from outside people and factors AND themselves.
A code of protection is foundational to almost every thriving society in human history whether it be chilvary (in europe), bushido in asia, native american warrior ethics and selfless service prevents and reduces internal chaos and predatory behavior.
They may not be criminals but they are weak, spineless assholes. As young men, they have a responsibility to themselves, their brothers and those incapable of protecting themselves from situations like this.
And you know it. Thats the worst part of you arguing against it. It's sad that you'll compromise your own character for a social media argument. Shouldn't[t be a suprise at this point though but I admit, I overestimated you.
This post was edited on 10/1/26 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 10/1/26 at 11:58 am to Fun Bunch
quote:
In this case, she is suing them. It is a legal matter
You know civil cases and criminal cases are different things right? For example OJ lost his civil case but won his criminal case.
And regardless, I’m not just talking about the legality, I’m saying the people outraged online have a reason to be so.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:12 pm to tylercsbn9
quote:
I'd say her initial statements hold more weight than what she is trying to say later for a lawsuit in order to get paid. Initially she probably told the actual truth because she got it in her mind that what the boys did was rape (to cover for her poor decisions) when by law it turns out it wasn't. So for the lawsuit she has to then backtrack to make it rape.
I do concede that that is a possible scenario. But to add on as another potential, what if it took time for her to process what actually happened and that she was indeed actually victimized? As the OP stated, there are times where women have been beat, but they still go back to their abusers, cover up for them, even going as far as to attack those trying to help them. Does this mean she was never abused?
Victims do not always immediately know that they are victims. I don't completely understand the logic either. It's not something I have personally experienced, and I never will. But it is the experience for some others.
I'm not saying with certainty that I know this is 100% what happened. But at the same time, it is not unheard of or a completely possibility either.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:17 pm to QJenk
That's understandable but she either lied to the police or in the suit. It's also understandable that rational people wouldn't take her for her word.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:22 pm to QJenk
quote:
But to add on as another potential, what if it took time for her to process what actually happened and that she was indeed actually victimized?
Or what if she got slut shamed, had a roommate in her ear telling it was actually rape and not her fault, and then got pissed because she got disinvited from a Halloween party she desperately wanted to attend at the house where she was “raped”?
Oh it was actually just her processing!!! Frick off with this modern therapy “processing” BS. The only processing she did was deciding that this was a way to flip the script from drug whore to martyr.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:23 pm to QJenk
quote:
what if it took time for her to process what actually happened and that she was indeed actually victimized?
I'll acknowledge your point, and say even if we give no weight to the legal conclusion she drew about the situation in the text message the next day or what she told the police initially about that she wasn't raped, it doesn't negate the factual statements she made to them. Changing the facts 2 years later in a civil suit is inherently suspicious.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:24 pm to GVT
I had a roomate in college who had a 1600 on SAT. That was the dumbest person I associated with freshman year.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:27 pm to LSUfan4444
quote:
You don't need to know legal specifics to know what occurred there went too far and should have been stopped and prevented from one or more of those young men.
Even if the Jane never dissented one or more of them should have protected her from herself and his brothers.
I'm in complete agreement with everything you said. To add on, as it's been referenced in this thread. One of the guys texted her the next day apologizing for how things went down, and that he felt terrible for not shutting thing down and not kicking anyone out because they went too far.
At a minimum, how does that not sound like assholes?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:28 pm to _Hurricane_
quote:
Oh it was actually just her processing!!! Frick off with this modern therapy “processing” BS. The only processing she did was deciding that this was a way to flip the script from drug whore to martyr.
Are you open at all to your current position being wrong?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:31 pm to QJenk
quote:
Are you open at all to your current position being wrong?
do you understand that 100% of the posters here would be the first to string these dudes up by their nutsacks if they were proven guilty?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:31 pm to QJenk
Are you open to helping her carry a mattress around campus?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:45 pm to Sam Quint
quote:
do you understand that 100% of the posters here would be the first to string these dudes up by their nutsacks if they were proven guilty?
I understand and admire your optimism. But I do not agree on that 100% number. Some people will refuse to admit they are wrong, no matter what.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:56 pm to QJenk
quote:
Honest question: Are you open at all to your current position being wrong?
Must have been a lot of new developments since you were leaving this thread just a few posts ago
To answer your question, of course. But I didn't just form my opinion arbitrarily.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 1:20 pm to tylercsbn9
quote:
she went to the police because after she told her friend she was embarrassed.
I feel like we have heard this story before.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 1:26 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
You know civil cases and criminal cases are different things right?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 1:40 pm to SaintsForever83
Just listened to the Megan Kelly podcast on this and it sounds like the guys are in the clear leagally.
Posted on 10/1/26 at 2:21 pm to QJenk
quote:
Are you open at all to your current position being wrong?
Based on the known facts? That would be extremely difficult. How about you?
Posted on 10/1/26 at 2:21 pm to Tiger1242
Yeah, the dudes involved are sketchy shitheads, best case.
I just wouldn’t lump the kids who didn’t respond to the messages into the same category. There are a thousand reasons why people wouldn’t have seen or responded to the exchange in real time.
I just wouldn’t lump the kids who didn’t respond to the messages into the same category. There are a thousand reasons why people wouldn’t have seen or responded to the exchange in real time.

Popular
Back to top


1











