Well, that man wasn’t exactly poor, not even mid class. Even if he wasn’t near-the-top, he’s still just one exception to the rule. One single exception can’t prove anything false, as it’s just anecdothical evidence unless it’s against an universal proposition.
What the fuck, I never defended the fucking rapists. What you’re doing is defamation.
CW: SA and FA
Hell, I’ve even been raped two fucking times in my life, one of them when I was a fucking child. I know what I’m talking about because I suffered that and also I have suffered of one false claim. Neither of the two are placid stuff.
I’ve only been trying to nuance things a bit, because most of people jump directly to “trust the (supposed) victims even when there’s no single evidence”, and I can’t deffend that. But apparently that’s defending sexual abusers.
But I’m not, I’m just defending the presumption of innocence: someone has to be considered innocent unless proven otherwise.
Because they deserve it. Now you’re saying that a rapist has to be treated better than how they treated their victims? That’s not justice, and that makes their calculus of costs-benefits be always positive to them.
This analogy illustrates it very well: you give just a minor reprimand for a child’s action everytime they form a tantrum, and they’ll learn that making a tantrum is not that bad because the worse they’ll get is a minor reprimand, not something lasting as being grounded.
A 20-year review of reported rape and sexual assault cases found that 89% were “founded” by law enforcement, meaning police determined that the crime more than likely occurred.
But only 8% of reported rape and sexual assault cases ended in conviction.
In other words, police believed most reports, but very few cases led to the perpetrator’s conviction. Survivors can be believed and still not get the legal outcome they seek.
Brock Turner is not a part of the Epstein class. You’ve already proven your statement false.
Well, that man wasn’t exactly poor, not even mid class. Even if he wasn’t near-the-top, he’s still just one exception to the rule. One single exception can’t prove anything false, as it’s just anecdothical evidence unless it’s against an universal proposition.
You have had many comments moderated because of your defense of rapists. People can see through you.
What the fuck, I never defended the fucking rapists. What you’re doing is defamation.
CW: SA and FA
Hell, I’ve even been raped two fucking times in my life, one of them when I was a fucking child. I know what I’m talking about because I suffered that and also I have suffered of one false claim. Neither of the two are placid stuff.
I’ve only been trying to nuance things a bit, because most of people jump directly to “trust the (supposed) victims even when there’s no single evidence”, and I can’t deffend that. But apparently that’s defending sexual abusers. But I’m not, I’m just defending the presumption of innocence: someone has to be considered innocent unless proven otherwise.
Your moderation history and past comments are open for everyone to see.
Yeah, and precisely because of that is that I say what I’m saying, because anything I have said supports rapists.
Is by any case saying that rapists should live the same as their victims, but with added torture, something that a rapist supporter would say?
Now you’re supporting torture and cruel and unusual punishments.
Because they deserve it. Now you’re saying that a rapist has to be treated better than how they treated their victims? That’s not justice, and that makes their calculus of costs-benefits be always positive to them.
This analogy illustrates it very well: you give just a minor reprimand for a child’s action everytime they form a tantrum, and they’ll learn that making a tantrum is not that bad because the worse they’ll get is a minor reprimand, not something lasting as being grounded.
Rapists should not be infantilized and treated like they are children throwing a tantrum. Restorative justice is important.
No he’s not.