Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan
That's not misrepresenting the other side. My "raped by a ghost" example, by your logic, shouldn't be discounted because women lying about rape is "statistically rare". It's an extreme example because you guys can't seem to see the obviously flaw in the more subtle example. The point of it is, other factors come into play.
And yes, you're not saying that Enzo definitely did it. But when you keep making it clear "well, he could have still done it because women don't tend to lie about rape", you're clearly implying where the odds lean. Why is my extreme example so crazy? Because there's other factors at play that make it seem unlikely? If so, congrats. You're using the same logic we've been using the entire time. We're on the same page.
|
Except sexual abusers and ghosts don't exist in the same realm of likelihood? That's just a ridiculous and childish example. The chances of someone being sick aren't out of this world, but the chances of someone being infected with an extra-terrestrial flesh-eating virus specifically out of a sci-fi movie in the 80's come to life with magic is low.
I don't think I made that quote. You're splicing two halves of two different points together. "Women don't usually lie about rape" is one point. That's true. I don't see your big problem with that and why that truth makes you uncomfortable. The second is that "he could have still done it, because there not being enough evidence to convict doesn't mean it didn't happen," which is not an outlandish statement ever. If there are two children who could have eaten the cookies from a cookie jar, and you can't be sure who it was, and they each accuse the other and you don't have the evidence to accuse either one, it doesn't mean that the cookies weren't eaten. In this case: Maybe there were no eaten cookies? Maybe there were? We don't know, but where I disagree is when you say there definitely aren't because you can't be sure an accused party actually did it. You just shouldn't blame them for eating cookies if you aren't sure cookies have been eaten. But you also shouldn't go around calling someone with an empty cookie jar with crumbs in it a liar also.
I think you've been far too biased with your application of what makes it "unlikely." I mean, neither of us has access to any sort of psychological assessment on the girl, but if I remember you were someone saying that because she "bragged" about it in a text, it means she couldn't have not given consent? I'm sure there's a proper name for it, but when people are abused you often see them try to take ownership over that abuse by compartmentalizing it differently in their mind. It's like disassociation, I suppose, but you see it in younger abuse victims all the time. They will almost brag about being hurt or make it seem like no big deal. It doesn't mean nothing's happened to them, man. Not everyone responds with tears at the time.
The only other thing is the guy that says she's a liar. But if he's a liar...
It's dumb. It's really fucking dumb to discuss this like either of us has intimate knowledge of what is happening. I'm just put-off by people so willing to attack the credibility of a woman reporting a crime, of which false reports I believe are still felonies, making it extremely disadvantageous.