Accusations alone prove Nothing

According to statistics mainstream liberals like to use, most people who’re, charged, with rape end up being convicted, and so their twisted logic goes: we’re justified in presuming guilt, siding with the accuser and destroying the lives of men who’ve been accused of rape or sexual harassment, because they’re probably guilty anyway.

However charging someone with rape, and accusing someone of rape without charging them are two completely different things, you cannot logically use the former to strengthen the case of the latter.

When you charge someone, you want to be sure, because it costs time and money to have
someone tried, where as merely accusing someone of rape costs nothing, and there’s no way to know how often people who’re merely accused of rape are guilty.

Charging someone with rape can cost you dearly if you’re making it up, and so has more credibility, merely accusing someone of rape costs nothing if you’re making it up, and so is worth nothing.

Furthermore, the courts won’t lay charges unless there’s a solid case against you, so what these statistics really prove is: if the courts think you probably committed rape, you probably committed rape, not that if some person claims you raped them, you probably did rape them.

Additionally, if during trial the accuser has been found guilty of knowingly making it up, for whatever reason(s): envy, jealousy, money, publicity, sympathy and so on, they can be countercharged and sued, where as if you make an accusation without charging someone, you can’t be charged and sued for that.

So equating charging someone with rape with merely accusing someone of rape is fallacious, the former means while you probably will be found guilty, you should still be given a fair trial just in case, the latter means absolutely nothing, it’s moot.

For mainstream liberals, all males are born with original patriarchal sin, and that’s how they can justify destroying men’s lives without evidence, because there’s no need for any, just being a man means you’re scum.

Like when people call Bill Clinton a rapist and all that. Total bullshit. I couldn’t agree with you more.

I didn’t really do a good job of explaining myself, I wrote the OP as a response to a YT video, and I wrote it late. I’ve edited the beginning part to make it easier to understand what my point was

Yea, or people who’ve accused Trump of sexual assault, or this ‘me too’ movement and so on.

Blind accusations serve appeals to emotion and feeling. It feels like something is being done, by accusing others of wrongdoing. It doesn’t need to be based on truth or reality. The fantasy is enough. Spreading rumors and gossip, is enough.

This marks the degeneracy of public discourse as well, when, false rumors and lies are enough “content” to satisfy the common people. It marks an apathetic society.

K: frankly, I am not quite sure what you are arguing for…are you saying that in a
rape case we should pay more attention not to destory a man’s life? that a man
needs should come before women’s? that in rape cases the man is always innocent
and the women just a slut asking for it? that rape is justified because it could destory
a man’s life? I really don’t quite know what you are arguing… if you could clarify it,
that would help…

Kropotkin

He did clarify it. An accusation doesn’t automatically mean guilty, but leftists believe it does without a guilty trial verdict.

K: I am not interested in your version of what he said, I am interested in his version…
but thank you…

I made myself clear, we shouldn’t assume the accused is guilty, and try to destroy his, or her life.
We should suspend judgment, unless and until he’s been proven guilty, or innocent, in the court of law.

@Kropotkin

Again, we shouldn’t assume the accused is guilty, and try to destroy his, or her life.
We should suspend judgment, unless and until he’s been proven guilty, or innocent, in the court of law.

Assuming he’s guilty, and trying to destroy his life, is in fact placing a woman’s needs before a man.
Putting both their needs on equal ground, means neither assuming he’s innocent, nor guilty, altho constitutionally the law has to assume he’s innocent until proven guilty.

I never said that, you read what you wanted me say, into what I’m saying.
You wanted this to be easy.

Of course that’s not what I’m saying, that’s what you wish I was saying, so you could easily dismiss what I am saying.

@Kropotkin

Are you a misandrist?
Do you hate men, and yourself, is that what you’re saying?
Are you saying we should believe a woman no matter what, that if she accuses a man of abusing her, we should side with her 100%, and not even have a trial, just proceed to lynch him?

Because I think that’s what you’re saying.

Are you saying all women are angels, incapable of lies and deceit, and that all men are scum, inhuman rapists who can’t control their impulses or feel empathy?

I’m not sure mainstream liberals are capable of having a rational debate or discussion anymore, it seems they’re only capable of emoting, slinging mud and making threats.
They’re like a herd of dumb animals, one or two of them gets spooked by what they thought was a predator lurking in the shadows.
They begin running and before you know it the whole herd is stampeding, trampling on whatever’s misfortunate enough to get in their way, including reason, justice and innocent people.

Yep, what do you think I’ve been saying this whole time?

Leftism is braincancer.

Leftism is an infectious mind-worm parasite that eats neurological connections in the brain. Over time you can see quite clearly the effect this has on individuals, and on societies.

Re: Accusations alone prove Nothing

The irony is just delicious.

I see you learned nothing from my lessons to you about what Leftism actually is. No surprises.

Must be all those infectious mind-worm parasites eating the few neurological connections left in your brain… I can definitely see the effect this has had on the society, you’re by no means a rare case. It’s almost as though Leftism has nothing to do it seeing as you’re so dead against them, how strange :-k

Back on topic, yes it’s a highly effective tactic simply to accuse somebody, whether or not the accusation has the slightest grounds. You see this in tabloids like the Daily Mail all the time - they throw something out there, knowing supporters will merely strengthen their convictions against that person upon skimming through the headlines, and then issue an apology in the sections nobody reads right near the end. The libel is done, and there are no consequences for the gossip at the wheel - only their target.

^ Thank you for demonstrating my point so well for me.

Best luck with the chemo.

Yes, I hear rationality is terminal for the few afflicted. Wish me luck, and keep hoping you are never so accursed.

Keep reading Marcuse, to get your definitions of what “rationality” means. No wonder it is terminal - for you.

Well, I can’t compete with your appeal to authority when it comes to exemplifying rationality. You win, well done!

[tab][/tab]