View Single Post
Old 05-17-2018, 03:05 PM   #400
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,894
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan View Post
It's completely logical to suggest that a person who has a history of being unstable and lacking credibility might not be credible. It's not "She's definitely lying". It's "She's not credible, so take it with a grain of salt." But for you, simply because he was accused, it needs to be made very clear that he could have still done it because women don't usually lie about being raped. Which is really skeevy. And I still have a feeling if it was some guy universally loved, this conversation wouldn't have started in the first place because no one would be desperate from now til the end of time to point out "Crazy chicks can get raped, too! Daniel Bryan still could have done it!"
This is where we diverge big time. "Lacking credibility" is a conclusion you're working back from. Someone with a history of being unstable can still have credibility, even if there are times they are not credible. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater there -- it's a massive generalization.

We're in agreement that it doesn't mean "she's definitely lying," but where we diverge is where you say "take it with a grain of salt." THAT is skeevy. You can still take something seriously without throwing someone into prison for it automatically. I feel the need to stress that "crazy chicks can get raped too," because you have very strongly implied that if a woman is crazy her claim of rape lacks validity. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you on that as you did me earlier, but I think that's even present in the "grain of salt" comment right there. Maybe I am placing too much weight on your specific choice of words there? I dunno, man. Dale could identify that women with substance abuse problems and a history of lies in the past could be more at risk. I don't see why it's such a problem for you.

And I said it to Savio, so I'll say it you: I resent the implication that I wouldn't take the same line with Daniel Bryan. I took the same line with Rich Swann, and I'll take the same line if it happens with someone else.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote