Bill O'Reilly: sexual harassment claims

[ponderingturtle]

Don't be flippant with me. I asked you a serious question. Do you think that settling out of court indicates guilt?

Yep there is no guilt involved, just like it would be wrong to call Trump University a fraud.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Don't be flippant with me. I asked you a serious question. Do you think that settling out of court indicates guilt?

I have answered that question twice, albeit in my own recalcitrant and flippant way.

 

[Belz...]

Yep there is no guilt involved, just like it would be wrong to call Trump University a fraud.

Ah, the patented ponderingturtle strawman.

I'm sure you can quote me saying anything like that? Otherwise, I'm equally as sure that you will apologise for your mischaracterisation of my argument.

 

[Belz...]

I have answered that question twice, albeit in my own recalcitrant and flippant way.

Well I'm not clear on what your answer is, so I'm going to assume for the time being that it's "yes".

In that case, can you not see that someone would like to avoid as much exposure of this story as possible, even if they're innocent, by trying to make it go away? Personally, I don't see settling out of court as a sign of guilt. I think the idea that it does goes against the entire philosophy of our justice systems.

 

[Spindrift]

Don't be flippant with me. I asked you a serious question. Do you think that settling out of court indicates guilt?

First I'll be pedantic. No, there is no guilt or innocence in a civil case.

Second I'll answer. Does settling out of court indicate liability?

Like most things in life, it depends.

Sometimes, especially when insurance is involved, it's much cheaper and less riskier to settle than pursue the case to trial. As a board member of a local museum, I was involved in a lawsuit of someone slipping and falling. Insurance company took over and settled the case even though we were sure the slip and fall was faked. We couldn't prove it though, so the settlement was the best we could do.

In O'Reilly's case, I'd go with liable. This isn't the first time he's had to settle and the dollar amount is non-trivial even for a rich person.

 

[Belz...]

First I'll be pedantic. No, there is no guilt or innocence in a civil case.

Second I'll answer. Does settling out of court indicate liability?

Like most things in life, it depends.

That is my entire point.

In O'Reilly's case, I'd go with liable. This isn't the first time he's had to settle and the dollar amount is non-trivial even for a rich person.

Also true.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Ah, the patented ponderingturtle strawman.

I'm sure you can quote me saying anything like that? Otherwise, I'm equally as sure that you will apologise for your mischaracterisation of my argument.

While you are trying to pin a universal association of out of court settlements and guilt to someone commenting on a particular.

 

[marplots]

Don't be flippant with me. I asked you a serious question. Do you think that settling out of court indicates guilt?

I'm not afraid to say it does bias me in that direction - even though I understand this isn't really the most rational reaction. I do tend to assume there's some guilt in play.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well I'm not clear on what your answer is, so I'm going to assume for the time being that it's "yes".

In that case, can you not see that someone would like to avoid as much exposure of this story as possible, even if they're innocent, by trying to make it go away? Personally, I don't see settling out of court as a sign of guilt. I think the idea that it does goes against the entire philosophy of our justice systems.

Is that what you think is occurring in this instance with Bill O'Reilly and the 13 miliion of payouts by him and his employer?

 

[Spock Jenkins]

I can't help but wonder if this situation could have been avoided entirely had Mr. O'Reilly made it a policy not to be alone in private situations with female colleagues. If the allegations are true, O'Reilly couldn't handle himself around women and should not have exposed himself to the temptation. If they are false, Mr. O'Reilly opened himself up to the possibility of false accusations by being in situations with no witnesses available.

 

[Information Analyst]

They assume they can get away with it, because they've always gotten away with it and there is no risk at all. It's not like Bill started this last week, it seems to be a lifelong pursuit.

Pretty much this. It seems that O'Reilly has a lot of "history" in these area, and it's clear that his superiors have always been keen to sooth any ruffled feathers with out of court settlements. One can only assume that they have been prepared to do so because O'Reilly is so valuable to them that they will do anything to a) keep him, and b) protect his image (no irony intended).

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well I'm not clear on what your answer is, so I'm going to assume for the time being that it's "yes".

In that case, can you not see that someone would like to avoid as much exposure of this story as possible, even if they're innocent, by trying to make it go away? Personally, I don't see settling out of court as a sign of guilt. I think the idea that it does goes against the entire philosophy of our justice systems.

This is a fine standard for judges to take in arbitration. But not for me deciding where to put my 5 cents down while wagering where the truth lays. More details will come out. Here's to hoping some of the alleged audio recordings of phone sex attempts remain.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Pretty much this. It seems that O'Reilly has a lot of "history" in these area, and it's clear that his superiors have always been keen to sooth any ruffled feathers with out of court settlements. One can only assume that they have been prepared to do so because O'Reilly is so valuable to them that they will do anything to a) keep him, and b) protect his image (no irony intended).

Most of that value seems to have drained away with sponsors fleeing. Under the bus he will go.

 

[Belz...]

While you are trying to pin a universal association of out of court settlements and guilt to someone commenting on a particular.

Gee, another strawman. Are you guys having a competition?

Is that what you think is occurring in this instance with Bill O'Reilly and the 13 miliion of payouts by him and his employer?

I don't know, actually. See how that works?

This is a fine standard for judges to take in arbitration. But not for me deciding where to put my 5 cents down while wagering where the truth lays.

I'm always baffled by so-called skeptics who think that they should hold themselves to a lower standard, for some reason. The fact that I agree with the court standards of guilt and innocence leads me to want to match that standard for myself. Why you would want to be less rational than the court system is beyond me, save for the possibility that it just makes you feel better.

 

[Sideroxylon]

A judge should work to standards like Blackstone's, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." My being wrong in this case is inconsequential.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ah, the patented ponderingturtle strawman.

I'm sure you can quote me saying anything like that? Otherwise, I'm equally as sure that you will apologise for your mischaracterisation of my argument.

That was a settlement with out admitting any wrongdoing. Why does a 25 million dollar settlement with out admitting guilt mean more than a few settlements adding up to 13 million?

 

[Belz...]

That was a settlement with out admitting any wrongdoing. Why does a 25 million dollar settlement with out admitting guilt mean more than a few settlements adding up to 13 million?

How is that an answer to my request? What does this have to do with anything I've said?

 

[ponderingturtle]

How is that an answer to my request? What does this have to do with anything I've said?

Then make an actual argument. Or do your standard of pretending your statements never mean anything in anyway and so any response to them must be a strawman because they have no position in them to start with, just meaningless quips.

 

[applecorped]

 

[Belz...]

Then make an actual argument.

I did. You sidestepped it when you made your strawman. The argument I made, several times, is that settlement does not indicate guilt. There are several reasons why one would settle out of court. This does not mean that I think O'Reilly is innocent. I know that last bit is difficult for you to understand, but try.

Or do your standard of pretending your statements never mean anything in anyway and so any response to them must be a strawman because they have no position in them to start with, just meaningless quips.

They rarely mean what you pretend that they mean because you have a long history of strawmanning other posters. You seem to be letting your passion for the topic dominate your reasoning. You add meaning to posts that isn't there and then, as you do here, are offended when one points it out.