Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Except that it's not your place to exact justice on the attacker but if the victim is your acquaintance, it is your place to comfort them (part of which is believing them). Not complicated, but too much for you to understand :)
What kind of argument is that? Who are you arguing with because your response is clearly not to anything I have said. At no point did I ever state it was ones duty to exact justice, I stated that you cannot "believe the victim" until you verify who in fact is the victim. The first person to speak is not always the victim. Again, not complicated, but your a fucking moron so I don't expect you to understand that (I mean lets face it, you know what you are (actually your so stupid you might not)).
Also, considering that thus far not one person seems to agree with your idea, we can presume with great accuracy that your wrong (which you are, common sense shows it). So again, clearly your the one struggling with logic and reason here, not every one else.
Pretty much everything you said was a red herring because it's NOT YOUR PLACE to exact justice on the attacker (and even though you didn't say it, you implied it because you're too stupid to understand a little thing called context). And what if a rape victim comes to you for comfort and support? Do you say "well, I'm not sure that you were raped"? Yeah that's not going to adversely impact their recovery if they were raped -_- It's not complicated but beyond your shallow scope of comprehension.
Nope, your just stupid. Its not my place to attack a person, great, who the fuck said anything about attacking? I seriously question how one could survive being as stupid as you (I can only imagine how often you accidentally stab yourself while eating (I presume your only allowed to use plastic spoons but your so stupid I bet you still find a way to fuck that up too)). Its not my place to take people at their word either, I don't believe some one because they said so that's fucking moronic, and its sure as hell not my place to punish people because of an accusation which is precisely what you are demanding (again your so incredibly stupid your not going to understand that). If you have chosen a side you have made your judgment, I do not make judgments on no data, I do not presume that the person who makes the accusation first must be innocent because that's fucking stupid and sets a dangerous precedence. Innocent until proven guilty is not just for government to follow, its a value system that all americans (I mean real ones) have because that is our way, its fair and just and I strive to be a fair and just person (again, as any American or person in generally really, should be doing).
Again, you're just an idiot who's perspective has been distorted by the anti-SJW shithole. The point of "believing her" is that IF the person was in fact raped, not "being believed" will adversely impact their recovery. If that person is a friend or family member, it is your place to provide a nurturing environment and no, you don't first need proof to do that. That's what they mean by believing the victim. At least I can handle a spoon unlike you who needs to be spoon fed everything only to spit it out like a pouting 2 year old.
Maybe, but then by that rational the wrongly accused not being believed will adversely effect their life forever. So back to square one, don't believe or disbelieve but rather get to the truth so that way you don't destroy some ones life. Again, your a fucking moron who can't put 2 and 2 together and I am still amazed you have managed to survive this long.
Except if someone comes to you saying they were raped, you can comfort them without having anything to do with the proposed attacker so you don't have to ruin the life of the falsely accused. You're just a reactionary imbecile who gets triggered by anything you perceive as being part of the SJW agenda.
Except your talking in circles again (because your stupid like that). Your aware that you can wait to cast judgment on some one while still not attacking and treating the other person like shit right? That's an option that your not understanding (because your stupid like that). If I believe her automatically I have stated she is not lying, she is not confused (I know a guy who was falsly accused by a woman because she left a party passed out drunk in her car and then decided he must have raped her despite the fact that he was sleeping on his friends coach the entire time she had been drunk and left. You would have me believe her over him and believe that he was a rapist simply because a woman said so (how very sexist of you (I personally try to treat women like equals, you should try it some time (and if you stopped kissing their ass and treating them like princesses you might even manage to get laid too (though your probably into men so maybe that would be a bad thing). See you cannot believe her without condemning him, I don't condemn people without knowing the facts. Never once said you have to treat her like shit and no one does when a woman comes out and claims a man raped her. In fact pieces of shit like you pamper her even when her story is clearly flawed (like the Rolling Stones rape story where a woman blamed an entire fraternity resulting in the fraternity being shut down, having bricks thrown through their windows, several of them expelled only to find out she made it all up (and her story right from the start was completely inconsistent (claimed their was a party when their wasn't, at the proclaimed time she was provably on a date with some one else off campus etc.). So I don't like destroying lives without justification (something else you should try (along with you know, critical thinking. Hell, at this point I would settle for noncritical thinking (fat chance that's going to happen with you though)).
I'm not "talking in circles" you're just dizzy from the information overload because it's too much for you to comprehend. And yeah, you can wait to cast judgement without treating the other person like "shit" but if you were just raped, you need a lot more than not being treated like shit (what you might consider "pampering"). It is an extremely traumatic experience and those can mess with your head (which can make it hard to recollect specific detains which is another explanation that a story might be incoherent besides the possibility that the victim was making it up). But like I said, in the aftermath of the attack you can ahem "pamper" the victim without having anything to do with the attacker so you're just creating a false dichotomy. So yeah, you're just a reactionary; noncritical thinking is the only kind of thinking you do. But I think it's obvious why you're so defensive on this topic; you couldn't get laid so you attempted to use force but got your ass kicked senseless ;)
It would be if they were asking you to exact revenge on the attacker but not if they're asking you to help thevictim.
Helping the victim is multidimensional. Part of that is getting the right attacker off the streets so they dont do it again.
That's the DOJs' job, not yours.
That doesn't matter. Often what destroys the lives of those who are falsely accused isn't being imprisoned, although that does happen, but also their reputation being completely tarnished because people assume that they're guilty. Some people end up dead as people take justice into their own hands. I once knew a man who was beaten to death by four people with bats and crowbars, before they ran over his dead body with a car multiple times believing that he was a rapist - afterwards it turned out the accusation was false.
I doubt that they're asking you to assault the alleged attacker either. Immediately after it happened, you don't have to have any interaction with the alleged attacker but if the rape actually occurred and someone was denied a comforting environment, it can adversely impact their recovery.
I'm not saying that they should be denied a comforting environment either. All I am saying is that automatically believing the victim means presuming the guilt of the accused, and that's what fucks their lives up also. You're naive if you think that the MeToo advocates give a shit about what happens to those accused whether it's true or not.
And telling them "well I'm not sure if you were sexually assaulted" isn't going to help them. I doubt they're asking you to confront the attacker or spread rumors about them. Once things have settled then you can make an informed decision about what kind of relationship you'll have with the victim and the attacker.-If it turns out the alleged victim was lying, screw them and keep the relationship you had with the falsely accused.-If it seems inconclusive well then just avoid getting involved with any interaction between the two.But the point is that with regards to how you interact with the victim, no harm will come from believing them if it turns out they were lying but if they were telling the truth they will likely recover so much better than they would otherwise.
Of course, it would be terrible to tell a woman that you don't believe that they were raped or are not sure in case it really were true for the reasons you mentioned. With the victim you give them support. That's obvious.But also automatically believing that it's 100% true is what leads to those other things happening. In extreme cases it leads to death. In less extreme cases it leads to names being dragged through the mud and their reputation ruined, sometimes even after being found not guilty and even sometimes when the accusation was proven false. In some places also, universities for example, an accusation will have you excluded without any due process. People get fired. People's lives get derailed. It's not true to say that no harm comes from that, at all. That's also what the MeToo movement want to encourage more of. In fact for some of them it's really just a political tool that they want to use to take down political opponents. That's why many of the same people who say "believe all women", who attacked Kavanaugh and presumed that he was guilty despite all of the holes in the story, and still say that just because he was found not guilty doesn't mean that he isn't, are coming out in support of Joe Biden despite the accusations against him. Talking now about how "believe all women" suddenly needs to be "re-examined".
It doesn't automatically lead to those things happening if it pertains to how you treat the victim and not the attacker.
You're missing the point because you keep bringing it back to the way you or I should act in this situation. I know what you're saying, much of this is just common sense. I wouldn't tell a woman that I doubted she'd been raped, I wouldn't start saying or doing anything about/to the attacker. That's not what MeToo is about though, and it's not what the advocates of MeToo do either, as with the examples I just gave.
There's a lot of confusion between "not believing" the victim and saying she's lying they sound the same but are actually very different
Tell a rape victim "I'm not sure if you were raped" when you're trying to comfort them. It probably won't go well and you aren't law enforcement; it's not your place to exact justice.
What the hell... Why on earth would I do that? Lmao! You sir, have a bizzare concept of comfort
Smh. Agreed. Not only isn't it my place to enact justice but more importantly, I HAVE NO DESIRE TO DO SO
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!