The most important part is THAT THERE WILL BE A FULL INVESTIGATION, and not litigated in Enquirer pages.
If Wohl is involved, the lead will most likely disappear, and people will continue giving him money (ala Okeefe. Any press is good for a ratfucker.)
His ex-wives are apparently speaking up for him, so there’s that. It will be morbidly interesting to see how this all shakes out.
That’s not true for multiple reasons.
We can generally agree that, human nature being what it is, someone somewhere is going to fabricate a case of assault for personal gain. However, history has told us that the incidence of this happening is so infinitesimally small, especially versus legitimate cases that are disbelieved simply due to “lack of evidence”, that it would be unwise to assume that situation to be the case, absence evidence.
Further, this likely assault victim and her perpetrator have been thrust into the spotlight now. To suggest that it “Doesn’t mean anything” ignores the very real effect that having the courage to make this accusation, if events transpired as described by the victim, will have on both parties.
No, it doesn’t. Skepticism in the absence of evidence is human nature. As I said above, I think given the odds, it is a poor choice to assume the allegations to be false, and that you are likely betting on the losing horse, but it’s certainly not against the community guidelines to hold such an opinion.
For my part, I’ve been running a fever for the last few days. Unpleasant, and it makes it hard to avoid getting (ahem) hotheaded. I’m feeling better today, so let’s see how it goes.
I hope you feel better.
The most important thing here is that unlike the entirety of the GOP (and sidestepping any obvious biases many of us possess concerning the group claiming credit for this) we want the unvarnished truth.
Thank you. The PTSD is paying dividends. Abuse never goes away.
I am, too. And I don’t understand why it is that people tend to think the guy didn’t do it (it’s common to dismiss the woman’s claims during domestic abuse calls). It’s irrational. With nothing else known, it’s assumed the woman is a liar. I just don’t understand it.
In my opinioniverse, Oregon’s law (required to arrest a party when domestic abuse has been reported) is a good one. It takes judgment out of the hands of the police, which is good given how common it is for police to walk away without doing anything (other than putting a victim right back in danger).
One way my mother had me jailed was claiming I’d physically assaulted her. The police took me, saying they had to, and… the experience, all things considered, was bad. It’s that simple.
However, the alternative is that the law be more relaxed, perhaps by not requiring that the parties be separated. In this case, I wouldn’t have had to go to jail, but what if my mom had been telling the truth, and the cops took off because they assumed she’d lied?
I don’t want that for anybody, even if it means a few false-positives. She also tries really hard (sociopaths can be scary determined), and that probably contributed. So, my false-positive was hopefully a rare event.
IOW, I think you and I are aligned in our view here. Mostly.
I’d just go a couple steps further. I would hold a neutral attitude toward both sides (speculation is noise at best, and the court of public opinion at worst).
I would also hope they’re separated in the event it’s true, and then, when we have the story (if we get the story)… then we judge. And rightly.
NP. I have some health problems, and they can transform me from a happy person to a miserable one in minutes. When in Pain, I always feel like my head is switching channels between thinking… then pain… then thinking… then pain…
Concentrating is impossible in that state. This is also an emotional issue, so being able to post at all is a win 
With a world that, based on whom you believe, is roughly 90% religious, I’d say skepticism in the abscence of evidence is contrary to human nature. So much so that, nine out of ten times, humans believe in invisible higher powers for whom there is no evidence (and, where “evidence” is concerned, religious claims don’t tend to get a lot of pushback—nobody wants to be the person potentially denying someone else’s beliefs).
The Jesus toast shows up. The Jesus toast is sold. The public makes a few jokes. Life goes on.
People aren’t skeptical by nature (in the absence of evidence or otherwise).
This is drifting a bit offtopic, but I think you’re wrong there. IMHO, the universal prevalence of religion is both a combination of social peer pressure (and institutionalization of religious belief in many countries), tradition, and skepticism that this universe could not be the result of intelligent design.
Take away the first two elements and you have what everyone who’s ever worked in sales for something new or novel likely knows - getting folks to believe in what you’re selling is very often far from easy.
If not for the possible Surefire connection, I’d have no problem believing the allegations. That one thing, though, warps the calculations quite a lot.
Specifically it’s very different to not believe a woman and the last time Surefire held a presser they asked us to “believe” that a woman existed to take down Mueller without any proof that one existed. I don’t think the law is bad, but I do believe an Okeefelike ratfucker group who has been known to fabricate evidence for a hoax may receive a more skeptical response.
Either way a moot point, it’s about an investigation and not for the court of public opinion so much.
Off topic of no, thanks for that. I’ll be thinking about that for a while.
On topic, I am not sold on Avenatti assaulting anyone at this point. We’ve seen more than one recent attempt to discredit Trump opponents with false allegations; and to simultaneously discredit the idea that allegations should be believed. Those false allegations have all imploded really quickly, though. Media outlets have researched them and seen through them.
But the NYT and the Washington Post have a much higher bar for printing things than the LAPD do for bringing someone in for questioning. Both will conduct investigations into information they are given, but for the police bringing in the accused is just part of the investigation.
I guess I also find ex-wives to be good character witnesses on the topic of domestic violence.
Anyway, I doubt everyone has dropped this story, and I think we’ll see another headline about it that will make things much clearer soon.
Yeah, what concerns me about Wohl is his apparent complete lack of sense or self preservation. Normally I’d think, “someone wouldn’t do that, they’d be afraid they’d end up in prison.” But this is the idiot who went after Mueller.
Wow, I go to bed and the whole damn story changes. I had no idea that ratfucker was involved in this. Sadly, much like the Mueller operation, he wins either way, in that either a Trump enemy is destroyed, or he can point to this as a reason to distrust women who have truly been abused. The only way to fix this is to grind his ass into dust. Let the machinery be fired up…
I don’t think we know that he was. But he certainly stuck his head out when it would seem much more sensible for him to be keeping it down, seeing as how he is likely currently being investigated by the FBI. Obviously if he did have anything to do with the allegations then their credibility plummets.
I think it’s the sense that, even after two years’ time, and Spencer and O’Keefe running around free, not many trollies have actually wound up in jail yet. I think it’s bolstering their false sense of security.
And to be fair, there was a very recent, ham-fisted attempt to discredit Mueller by drumming up a fake accusation of sexual assault or some such…
The universal prevalence of religion is the result of the early days of trying to figure out what’s going on.
It’s also served many civic functions (depending on time/place, it could be anything from welfare to imprisonment).
Don’t know if you’ve studied ancient religions (and spirituality in general), but peer-pressure and institutionalization aren’t responsible for the 90% of believers (many of whom don’t participate in the institutional aspects; these people would be better described as believers).
We have religious freedom in the US, and yet only 18% of Americans identify as atheist or agnostic.
The majority of people lead lives built in part upon the belief, in the absence of evidence (one of your argument points), that their deity is real and affects their lives.
Christianity is a particularly interesting example because looking for evidence/proof is a no-no because Christianity is faith based, and faith is belief without reason. Searching for evidence makes you look unfaithful, and that can go all kinds of wrong. Flip over a rock, and you’re a heretic. Then your neighbors salt your garden.
That’s antithetical to skepticism (and critical-thinking, without which skepticism isn’t of much use).
You are welcome to that belief, and while it may have been true in the “early days”, I do not personally believe that to be the case today. IMHO inertia, fear, institutionalization, peer pressure, and indeed, skepticism that “this could all possibly be the result of random chaos” are much larger drivers today.
Again though, this is offtopic, so I won’t be commenting further on this tangent - my opinion here is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
I understand your position.
A great primer on skepticism/critical thinking (with, iirc, a focus on religion) is Carl Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World”.
Well, there’s the Seth Myers view, namely that if Avenetti was that bad he’d be working for Trump.
Is there even a woman? TMZ claimed there was, and that she was Avenetti’s ex-wife, but that turned out to be wrong. One LAPD officer mentioned a woman, but I think it is LAPD policy to assert the existence of a victim any time they arrest someone; often these victims reside in what we used to call Meinong’s Jungle when I was a kid.
