All of these are singular examples of events that are presumably violations of the law, except the last frame which is about changing policy and affects all events in the future. They are not the same.

Yeah, that’s why as soon as someone gets accused of rape, if you dare say that they’re a piece of shit you get a ton of “innocent until proven guilty”

Even on lemmy, people keep on defending rapists. When I dared to complain about the term “allegedly raped” about the son of the princess of whatever that was good friends with epstein who had fucking literal videos that he took of the rape, people started defending it by saying that he’s innocent until proven guilty. Inescapable evidence? Believing the many, many victims that reported him? No, let’s instead pretend that we are in a court of law so that we can support the rapists.

Most men are definitely not against rape. I’m not sure that most people are, in general. They might be superficially against the idea, but practically speaking they don’t want to disturb the social status quo that protects rapists by pretending that rape victims are liars.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is about not prematurely judging when you don’t know the facts. It’s not about defending rapists - it’s about defending people who are possibly not rapists.

Are you a judge or a lawyer? Or even, a newspaper?

If not, then why do you have to follow a legal safeguard?

Why are people not saying that Trump is allegedly doing bad stuff, he hasn’t been formally condemned, so innocent until proven guilty?

If it’s not about defending rapists, then why is it that people only say that when it protects rapists and the like, but not for other criminal activities?

And last but not least, saying innocent until proven guilty about a rapist, is prematurely judging that the victims are lying. So you’re deciding to trust someone, and you’re trusting the one accused of rape rather than the victims.

But thanks for proving my point.

why do we have ideals? does the fact that you have carved an exception in “innocent until proven guilty” out for rape say more about you or us

What are you even trying to say?

Are you really implying that ideals should overcome justice, even when those ideals have been proven many times to not work?

Are you really saying that rape victims are able to get believed through the legal system, and that rapists get punished?

Keep on defending rape bro.

BTW solumbran has been credibly accused of rape. What should we do about them?

Oh now you see the problem?

Ah, you’re one of those team-rapist that consider that it’s more common for victims to lie about getting raped, than not? That it’s fun to say to the world “hey I’ve been sexually abused and treated like a worthless crap”, while knowing that it’s very unlikely that anything will ever happen to the culprit? That’s pathetic.

If people accuse me of rape, I’m going to address it. And then you can form your opinion, just like with everything else. This is not. A. Court. You have the right to have a brain on your own, even though you visibly don’t use that right.

On top of that, you didn’t even just say “accused” but “credibly accused”, which means with a relatively good level of credibility. If in a case like that, you decide to still believe that the victims are lying, I’m sorry but you are part of the group of pieces of shit that defend, support and ultimately protect rapists. You decide to say “I will ignore all evidence, and believe a rapist until the victim manages to prove the rape legally, which is in most cases impossible”.

You sound like a very nice and likeable person.

You should really try an argument style that isn’t “put words in the other person’s mouth and then argue against that”

Yeah I don’t know why I even bothered giving you attention

Having read this thread, I gotta side with the other guy, especially since I heard you were a rapist. You make me sick you rapist piece of shit.