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.