George Will: Being a Rape Victim is now a "coveted status" (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

For those interested:

Nice article from Conor Friedersdorf, which has great sections both about reading comprehension in context of the article and the claimed inaccuracies of the op-ed piece, one of which relates to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's position and my point about such five days ago. I'm almost in lockstep with Friedersdorf on this one, and have been from the beginning. Will "shoehorned" too many sensitive topics into one op-ed, and it was massively either: a) misread b) willfully misrepresented

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/rage-against-the-outrage-machine/373069/

If it was massively misread, maybe the problem is the writer, not the audience. I found it poorly written (as well as inflammatory).

No, I think the guy from The Atlantic pretty much nailed it. Some of Will's critics (not all) deliberately misread his column. He's also right that this sort of thing seems to happen on a weekly basis.

He also screwed up royally by giving an example that a large number of people agree is rape.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

If it was massively misread, maybe the problem is the writer, not the audience. I found it poorly written (as well as inflammatory).

I would say both.

And it speaks to the point of this Conor guy - that we assume the worst in regards to the intentions of the "other side".

I didn't really assume anything prior to reading Will's article. I know he's conservative, but more often than not he makes decent points and presents interesting supporting arguments, whether I agree with him or not. This article was a mess.

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

 

[Gr00vus]

For those interested:

Nice article from Conor Friedersdorf, which has great sections both about reading comprehension in context of the article and the claimed inaccuracies of the op-ed piece, one of which relates to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's position and my point about such five days ago. I'm almost in lockstep with Friedersdorf on this one, and have been from the beginning. Will "shoehorned" too many sensitive topics into one op-ed, and it was massively either: a) misread b) willfully misrepresented

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/rage-against-the-outrage-machine/373069/

If it was massively misread, maybe the problem is the writer, not the audience. I found it poorly written (as well as inflammatory).

Or it was willfully misrepresented.

Friedersdorf covers the poorly written charge, and earlier in the thread, I said it was a poor decision to try and combine both the new due process regulations promulgated by the White House as pertaining to academia with a broader point about micro-aggression and victim status. He would have been better served to write two separate articles. That said, it's pretty clear, when you parse the language, that there were two separate topics w/in the op-ed, at least as far as I read it.

That's what I'm saying - at least 2 separate topics, possibly a few more (or at least a couple of sub topics), a he said/she said situation used as a supporting argument to draw concrete conclusions from - just bad.

I'm not sure what you mean by misrepresented though - was there some other, better version of the article we haven't seen? Or are you talking about coverage of the article?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm not sure what you mean by misrepresented though - was there some other, better version of the article we haven't seen? Or are you talking about coverage of the article?

I think it's clearly the latter. Where Will shoehorned an example that didn't best fit his thesis, his critics did the exact same thing by using his article as a strawman for arguments he wasn't even making.

 

[rockaction]

For those interested:

Nice article from Conor Friedersdorf, which has great sections both about reading comprehension in context of the article and the claimed inaccuracies of the op-ed piece, one of which relates to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's position and my point about such five days ago. I'm almost in lockstep with Friedersdorf on this one, and have been from the beginning. Will "shoehorned" too many sensitive topics into one op-ed, and it was massively either: a) misread b) willfully misrepresented

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/rage-against-the-outrage-machine/373069/

If it was massively misread, maybe the problem is the writer, not the audience. I found it poorly written (as well as inflammatory).

Or it was willfully misrepresented.

Friedersdorf covers the poorly written charge, and earlier in the thread, I said it was a poor decision to try and combine both the new due process regulations promulgated by the White House as pertaining to academia with a broader point about micro-aggression and victim status. He would have been better served to write two separate articles. That said, it's pretty clear, when you parse the language, that there were two separate topics w/in the op-ed, at least as far as I read it.

That's what I'm saying - at least 2 separate topics, possibly a few more (or at least a couple of sub topics), a he said/she said situation used as a supporting argument to draw concrete conclusions from - just bad.

I'm not sure what you mean by misrepresented though - was there some other, better version of the article we haven't seen? Or are you talking about coverage of the article?

The coverage and the reaction is what I'm talking about. There were op-eds in response that claimed Will called the girl "delusional" or that he said that "rape victims want to be victims," both of which are (maybe not so) clearly not what he said.

 

[Gr00vus]

For those interested:

Nice article from Conor Friedersdorf, which has great sections both about reading comprehension in context of the article and the claimed inaccuracies of the op-ed piece, one of which relates to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's position and my point about such five days ago. I'm almost in lockstep with Friedersdorf on this one, and have been from the beginning. Will "shoehorned" too many sensitive topics into one op-ed, and it was massively either: a) misread b) willfully misrepresented

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/rage-against-the-outrage-machine/373069/

If it was massively misread, maybe the problem is the writer, not the audience. I found it poorly written (as well as inflammatory).

Or it was willfully misrepresented.

Friedersdorf covers the poorly written charge, and earlier in the thread, I said it was a poor decision to try and combine both the new due process regulations promulgated by the White House as pertaining to academia with a broader point about micro-aggression and victim status. He would have been better served to write two separate articles. That said, it's pretty clear, when you parse the language, that there were two separate topics w/in the op-ed, at least as far as I read it.

That's what I'm saying - at least 2 separate topics, possibly a few more (or at least a couple of sub topics), a he said/she said situation used as a supporting argument to draw concrete conclusions from - just bad.

I'm not sure what you mean by misrepresented though - was there some other, better version of the article we haven't seen? Or are you talking about coverage of the article?

The coverage and the reaction is what I'm talking about. There were op-eds in response that claimed WIll called the girl "delusional" or that he said that "rape victims want to be victims," both of which are (maybe not so) clearly not what he said.

That's the problem. The poorly written article left room for interpretation, so people with their own agendas will definitely take it what ever direction they want.

It's unfortunate, because somewhere in there I think there was a thesis I somewhat agree with around the hyper sensitivity that college institutions seem to foster. I don't agree that it's a U.S. governmentally dictated phenomenon, but I think there is an over dramatization of every perceived slight/wrong/etc. that goes on in the college environment. I'd never try to make that argument on the back of rape allegations though - that's idiotic in lots of ways. He opened himself up to a world of hurt doing that.

 

[CBusAlex]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That's the problem. The poorly written article left room for interpretation, so people with their own agendas will definitely take it what ever direction they want.

No, it really didn't. There was nothing in the article suggesting that Will believed that "real" rape victims should stay quiet about their experiences. If a person attributes that view to Will, it's a problem with their reading comprehension or intellectual honesty, not Will's writing.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Of course. Because Will obviously doesn't think that a rape actually took place.

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.

Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Of course. Because Will obviously doesn't think that a rape actually took place.

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Right, but from the other perspective his fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes rape makes his entire article ridiculous. If he doesn't count that as a legitimate rape complaint - even if not a conviction - and rather as just falsely claiming victimhood, his article is insulting and without merit.

 

[Gr00vus]

That's the problem. The poorly written article left room for interpretation, so people with their own agendas will definitely take it what ever direction they want.

No, it really didn't. There was nothing in the article suggesting that Will believed that "real" rape victims should stay quiet about their experiences. If a person attributes that view to Will, it's a problem with their reading comprehension or intellectual honesty, not Will's writing.

Sure it did. Maybe not the specific conclusion you mention, but it absolutely was vague enough and so poorly constructed that it left the door open to take it ways he didn't intend. You really think that was a well written article? Because it wasn't, not even close really.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.

Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Of course. Because Will obviously doesn't think that a rape actually took place.

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Right, but from the other perspective his fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes rape makes his entire article ridiculous. If he doesn't count that as a legitimate rape complaint - even if not a conviction - and rather as just falsely claiming victimhood, his article is insulting and without merit.

As you know, I completely agree with Will on that example.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

At any rate, if this many intelligent and learned people can disagree on it, it's at least a reasonable complaint - and therefore shouldn't be used as an example of obvious false victimhood.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

At any rate, if this many intelligent and learned people can disagree on it, it's at least a reasonable complaint - and therefore shouldn't be used as an example of obvious false victimhood.

I think it's a pretty obvious example of false victimhood. You disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of a good example to me.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

At any rate, if this many intelligent and learned people can disagree on it, it's at least a reasonable complaint - and therefore shouldn't be used as an example of obvious false victimhood.

I think it's a pretty obvious example of false victimhood. You disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of a good example to me.

What law is your opinion based on?

 

[rockaction]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

I'm going to skip the HF/IK/AD complaints and stick with the point that people who disagreed with Will wildly misattributed his positions because of a lack of reading comp and a lack of familiarity with space, editing, word counts, and op-eds. And some, unlike Gr00vus, who have, IMO, valid complaints about the writing did so deliberately. And that's a shame. That's my original point, and I guess we're all sticking with our original points.

 

[Gr00vus]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

At any rate, if this many intelligent and learned people can disagree on it, it's at least a reasonable complaint - and therefore shouldn't be used as an example of obvious false victimhood.

I think it's a pretty obvious example of false victimhood. You disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of a good example to me.

So if there's disagreement, it's not a good support for his argument.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Never mind. We did this already.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

At any rate, if this many intelligent and learned people can disagree on it, it's at least a reasonable complaint - and therefore shouldn't be used as an example of obvious false victimhood.

I think it's a pretty obvious example of false victimhood. You disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of a good example to me.

What law is your opinion based on?

The one that the guy was never charged under.

Oh. So, one that you've never read. Well, that's a very learned opinion. Thanks.He engaged in sexual intercourse without receiving consent. Which is sexual assault under Pennsylvania law. And that makes it a legitimate complaint.

 

[Hang 10]

Yes, it was not his best. But that doesn't make sense of the leap that people made to think that he could actually be advocating telling genuine rape victims to stay in the shadows.

I'm not sure how you can read that piece in its entirety and not come the the conclusion that he thinks the girl in his example should not have reported a rape.

Right. The problem is he doesn't think that's rape. And that she isn't deserving of being called a rape victim.Anyone who disagrees with this premise is going to necessarily view his article in a pretty terrible light. And that's not misrepresentation.

Not going to go down that road again. I get that you clearly think it was. I and many others including Will, disagree.

At any rate, if this many intelligent and learned people can disagree on it, it's at least a reasonable complaint - and therefore shouldn't be used as an example of obvious false victimhood.

I think it's a pretty obvious example of false victimhood. You disagree, but that doesn't make it any less of a good example to me.

So if there's disagreement, it's not a good support for his argument.

Disagreement from someone who admits that he always gives the accuser the benefit of the doubt and from someone whose gets a signed consent form before making sweet love to his wife?

 

[CBusAlex]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.

Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.

Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

 

[Henry Ford]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

When the person you're describing is a letter-of-the-law sexual assault victim, it doesn't matter what your intent is. You are actually telling an assault victim not to report the assault.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

When the person you're describing is a letter-of-the-law sexual assault victim, it doesn't matter what your intent is. You are actually telling an assault victim not to report the assault.

a) How many years did the perpetrator get in this case?

b) I'm not overly interested in the letter of the law in this particular discussion. It's irrelevant to my main interest, which is what the law ought to be.

 

[Hooper31]

Where Will shoehorned an example that didn't best fit his thesis, his critics did the exact same thing by using his article as a strawman for arguments he wasn't even making.

Statements like this make me respect Andy D more and more. Well said.

 

[Henry Ford]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

When the person you're describing is a letter-of-the-law sexual assault victim, it doesn't matter what your intent is. You are actually telling an assault victim not to report the assault.

a) How many years did the perpetrator get in this case?

b) I'm not overly interested in the letter of the law in this particular discussion. It's irrelevant to my main interest, which is what the law ought to be.

I must not have committed the crime of speeding this morning because I haven't been charged. Whew!

 

[rockaction]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

When the person you're describing is a letter-of-the-law sexual assault victim, it doesn't matter what your intent is. You are actually telling an assault victim not to report the assault.

This is way too much, and the last I'll say about it.

People change their mind about sexual intercourse during the act all the time. One "no" half an hour before, can turn into a "let's do this" in a heartbeat.

This is the Pennsylvania statutory definition of rape. This was "forcible compulsion?" If you're talking about to what I linked to early in the thread, that's the Swarthmore handbook, not the criminal justice system.

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=4203#statute-top

 

[Henry Ford]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

When the person you're describing is a letter-of-the-law sexual assault victim, it doesn't matter what your intent is. You are actually telling an assault victim not to report the assault.

This is way too much, and the last I'll say about it.

People change their mind about sexual intercourse during the act all the time. One "no" half an hour before, can turn into a "let's do this" in a heartbeat.

This is the Pennsylvania statutory definition of rape. This was "forcible compulsion?" If you're talking about to what I linked to early in the thread, that's the Swarthmore handbook, not the criminal justice system.

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=4203#statute-top

I'm talking about 3124.1 Sexual Assault.Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape) or 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without the complainant's consent.

 

[CBusAlex]

Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

Forget Will's article for a moment. If I tell someone who was actually raped - whatever your standard for that is - that they weren't raped and shouldn't report it, I am in reality telling a rape victim to stay in the shadows. Even if that's not what I'm intending to do, it is what I am actually doing. Right?

 

[rockaction]

Surely you can see the distinction between "That's not rape so you shouldn't report it" and "You were raped but you shouldn't report it." Right?

Yes, and I understand that he means the former.Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

When the person you're describing is a letter-of-the-law sexual assault victim, it doesn't matter what your intent is. You are actually telling an assault victim not to report the assault.

This is way too much, and the last I'll say about it.

People change their mind about sexual intercourse during the act all the time. One "no" half an hour before, can turn into a "let's do this" in a heartbeat.

This is the Pennsylvania statutory definition of rape. This was "forcible compulsion?" If you're talking about to what I linked to early in the thread, that's the Swarthmore handbook, not the criminal justice system.

http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=4203#statute-top

I'm talking about 3124.1 Sexual Assault.

Dear God. Define "consent." Must it be an affirmative bodily motion, a willing passivity (who knows what that entails), or a verbal "yes?"

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Surely you can understand that telling someone who has actually been raped "that's not rape so you shouldn't report it" is literally telling a genuine rape victim to stay in the shadows. Right?

No, I don't understand that. If I dispute that a person was raped, then your conclusion doesn't follow. It's literally begging the question, since I don't concede that the person is a "genuine" rape victim.

Forget Will's article for a moment. If I tell someone who was actually raped - whatever your standard for that is - that they weren't raped and shouldn't report it, I am in reality telling a rape victim to stay in the shadows. Even if that's not what I'm intending to do, it is what I am actually doing. Right?

If someone was actually raped by my own standard, why am I telling them that they weren't raped?

Are you talking about a case where my opinion is based on incomplete information? If so, then yeah I guess I agree but I don't see that as a problem. If somebody says they were mugged and I don't believe them and think they shouldn't file a report, I'm not really taking the position that robbery victims shouldn't report their experiences -- I'm taking the position that people shouldn't file false reports. I'm open to the possibility that I might be mistaken about whether any particular report is false or not.

 

[CBusAlex]

If someone was actually raped by my own standard, why am I telling them that they weren't raped?

I think you misread that. They were raped by your standard. I'm the one telling them they weren't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If someone was actually raped by my own standard, why am I telling them that they weren't raped?

I think you misread that. They were raped by your standard. I'm the one telling them they weren't.

Oh, sorry. You're right that I misread that.

 

[Rick James]

this thread is ######ed